Looks like this isn't gonna end anytime soon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/05/libya-civil-war-gaddafi-zawiyah
Quote
Libya stalemate, but eruption of savage fighting casts civil war shadow
Gaddafi's forces encircle rebels in Zawiyah after a day of pitched battles intensifies pressure on the embattled dictator
* Martin Chulov in Benghazi, Peter Beaumont in Tripoli and Jamie Doward
* guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 March 2011 00.28 GMT
Forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi have encircled rebels in the town of Zawiyah after a day of pitched battles in the far west and east of Libya that intensified the pressure on the embattled dictator.
The fighting in Zawiyah, 30 miles west of the capital, Tripoli, was some of the most savage so far of the two-week uprising that has seen the east of the country fall into rebel hands and the veteran autocrat's rule pushed to the brink of collapse.
A contact of the Observer inside the city said the fighting was intense. "You must tell the world what is happening," the man said by phone. "Snipers are firing at anyone who moves."
Another inhabitant reported that at least 20 tanks had rolled into the town and had started shelling its square. "The fighting has intensified and the tanks are shelling everything on their way," Abu Akeel said. "They have shelled houses. Now they are shelling a mosque where hundreds of people are hiding. We can't rescue anyone because the shelling is so heavy."
A doctor in Zawiyah said that at least 30 people, mostly civilians, had been killed during fighting yesterday, bringing to 60 the death toll from two days of battles for control of the coastal town.
In the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, an SAS unit of up to eight men was being held after a secret mission to put British diplomats in touch with leading opponents of the regime ended in humiliation, the Sunday Times reported. The soldiers were captured as they escorted a junior diplomat through rebel-held territory in the east, according to the newspaper.
The onslaught came as the oil town of Ras Lanuf, around 250 miles west of the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, fell to anti-government forces after a day of fighting that left at least 20 dead. Residents of Ras Lanuf reported running battles between loyalist forces and rebels for 24 hours, before the government troops withdrew in what some observers have suggested was more of a tactical retreat than surrender. The area between the two towns is now being treated as a front line in a protracted campaign that many in Benghazi fear is beginning to turn into a civil war.
Some officials in Benghazi's nascent organising committee hailed the fall of the strategically important town as an important landmark in an eventual push towards Tripoli. However rebel commanders urged caution, insisting they must consolidate their gains before trying to advance. They point out that Sirte, further up the highway and in the hands of Gaddafi's troops, remains impassable.
After a fortnight of clashes, there are signs the battle for control of Libya is approaching a stalemate.
In an apparent softening of earlier declarations, leaders of the revolt said talk of a push on Tripoli was premature. Some went as far as to suggest that unless international moves are made to keep Gaddafi's air force out of the skies, the push would not take place.
Gaddafi has so far made only limited use of his 250 fighter jets in an apparent bid to reduce the risk of international intervention in the conflict. Establishing a no-fly zone would shift the balance of power and allow rebels to advance.
The Observer saw bombing runs near rebel positions on the outskirts of Brega last week. Witnesses said that jets also bombed targets in Ras Lanuf on Saturday and an attack helicopter fired on rebel-held areas.
However, most of the bombs appear to have fallen short – a result that some rebel leaders say is deliberate. "He is playing with us," said Major Ibrahim Fatouri in Benghazi. "This is the one time in recent years that he has cared what the world thinks of him. When you are tired of watching, the pilots will start hitting targets."
An intensification of the fighting came as the shadow foreign secretary, Douglas Alexander, criticised Europe's response to the crisis.
In an article for the Observer's website, Alexander said: "The EU has been slow off the mark on Libya. The UK government should now propose that Friday's EU council become a joint emergency summit held with the Arab League."
Heightened concerns that unrest will spread across the Middle East have prompted the government to issue new advice to travellers. The Foreign Office said: "We recommend that all British citizens without a pressing need to remain in Yemen should leave by the commercial flights currently available."
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, which has become concerned that the uprisings might spawn copycat protests, banned all marches. The announcement signalled that the recent small-scale protests by the Shia minority in the oil-producing east of the country would no longer be tolerated.
Thousands of Shia protesters in Bahrain formed a human chain around the capital, Manama, as their campaign to loosen the Sunni monarchy's grip on power entered its third week.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 05, 2011, 09:10:59 PM
In the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, an SAS unit of up to eight men was being held after a secret mission to put British diplomats in touch with leading opponents of the regime ended in humiliation, the Sunday Times reported. The soldiers were captured as they escorted a junior diplomat through rebel-held territory in the east, according to the newspaper.
So much for those calls for Western support. :lol:
Of course, the Brits never seem to get this kind of things to work anymore.
What? Why are the rebels holding the Brits who were there to talk of them?
In the paper this morning it was saying there were SAS men working with the rebels,training them.
Quote from: Tyr on March 05, 2011, 09:29:23 PM
What? Why are the rebels holding the Brits who were there to talk of them?
I get the impression they were captured by loyalists.
I hope for their sakes the Libyans hand out better suits than the Iranians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2011, 09:31:17 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 05, 2011, 09:29:23 PM
What? Why are the rebels holding the Brits who were there to talk of them?
I get the impression they were captured by loyalists.
I hope for their sakes the Libyans hand out better suits than the Iranians.
Every other article says the rebels captured them.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
Every other article says the rebels captured them.
How odd.
The Rebel Alliance undisciplinedly lurches towards Surt.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/03/libya-armies-of-the-east.html
It's a curious story and it will be most disappointing if the SAS have now also become a pushover.
Britain is becoming the new Italy; but we retain our shabby clothes, indifferent restaurants and bad icecream :(
Gadhafi dismayed at lack of support in War on Terror....
QuoteLibyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, who said in a French newspaper interview released on Sunday that he was embroiled in a fight against terrorism and expressed dismay at the absence of support from abroad.
"I am surprised that nobody understands that this is a fight against terrorism," the longtime autocrat of the North African oil-producing state told the Journal du Dimanche in excerpts of an interview due to be published later on Sunday.
"Our security services cooperate. We have helped you a lot these past few years. So why is it that when we are in a fight against terrorism here in Libya no one helps us in return?"
Gadhafi, who spoke to journalists from his headquarters in Tripoli, said Islamic holy war would engulf the Mediterranean if the insurrection in Libya, inspired by successful pro-democracy uprisings in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia, succeeded.
"There would be Islamic jihad in front of you, in the Mediterranean," he said. "Bin Laden's people would come to impose ransoms on land and sea. We will go back to the time of Red Beard, of pirates, of Ottomans imposing ransoms on boats."
The modern-day Mamluk...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia4.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FSlideshows%2F_production%2Fss-110303-libya-tabbed%2Fss-110303-libya-week2%2Fss-110304-libyaUnrest-jc-02.grid-8x2.jpg&hash=83c22978e590ec4242265eaa1497860332aafdab)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2011, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
Every other article says the rebels captured them.
How odd.
The rebels seems to think that every non Arab or Berber is a mercenary payed by Gaddafi. Africa oil workers has been attacked and some even lynched by locals, also wild rumors about "Christian" mercenary pilots from either Italy or Serbia being used to bomb rebel held cities. They somehow think that no true Arab muslim would fight for Gaddafi, so every outsider is suspicious...
Will they change the name to SOS? Gettit?
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 06, 2011, 05:35:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2011, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
Every other article says the rebels captured them.
How odd.
The rebels seems to think that every non Arab or Berber is a mercenary payed by Gaddafi. Africa oil workers has been attacked and some even lynched by locals, also wild rumors about "Christian" mercenary pilots from either Italy or Serbia being used to bomb rebel held cities. They somehow think that no true Arab muslim would fight for Gaddafi, so every outsider is suspicious...
they should be so lucky as to be bombed by christians.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 06, 2011, 08:17:14 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 06, 2011, 05:35:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2011, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
Every other article says the rebels captured them.
How odd.
The rebels seems to think that every non Arab or Berber is a mercenary payed by Gaddafi. Africa oil workers has been attacked and some even lynched by locals, also wild rumors about "Christian" mercenary pilots from either Italy or Serbia being used to bomb rebel held cities. They somehow think that no true Arab muslim would fight for Gaddafi, so every outsider is suspicious...
they should be so lucky as to be bombed by christians.
Yeah, it could be Zionist. There is quite a few video clips showing rebels calling the pro- Gaddafi troops for dirty Jews etc...
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 06, 2011, 02:34:21 AMWe will go back to the time of Red Beard, of pirates, of Ottomans imposing ransoms on boats."
[/quote]
from the halls of montezuuuuma, to the shores of tripoleeeeee...
:whistle:
The rebels are probably worse than the current regime. Colour me unsurprised.
The problem with all those Arab revolutions and civil wars is that in the end, the bad guys will inevitably win.
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 12:23:05 PM
The problem with all those Arab revolutions and civil wars is that in the end, the bad guys will inevitably win.
The Arab people are the 'bad guys'.
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2011, 12:26:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 12:23:05 PM
The problem with all those Arab revolutions and civil wars is that in the end, the bad guys will inevitably win.
The Arab people are the 'bad guys'.
*whoosh*
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 12:27:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2011, 12:26:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 12:23:05 PM
The problem with all those Arab revolutions and civil wars is that in the end, the bad guys will inevitably win.
The Arab people are the 'bad guys'.
*whoosh*
No, I got it. I just think you're wrong.
They have already been freed :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12660163
A curious tale :hmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg27.imageshack.us%2Fimg27%2F3240%2Flibyasalesman.jpg&hash=f3776911379a00d086bce121d82b140c8e08d504)
:P
What seems odd to me is that there appears to be no one stepping forward to claim leadership of the rebel movement. Some sort of governing council seems to be emerging in Benghazi but few of the members there seem to have names. The clergy appear to be backing the movement- some of them at least- but again, none speaking up publicly.
Other places with repressive governments still seem to have opposition leaders but I'm not seeing them here.
I saw a really long defense of Gadaffi (can we have some sort of standard of how to spell his name, please?) from some Brazilian commie. It was hilarious.
Quote from: Maximus on March 06, 2011, 02:42:26 PM
What seems odd to me is that there appears to be no one stepping forward to claim leadership of the rebel movement. Some sort of governing council seems to be emerging in Benghazi but few of the members there seem to have names. The clergy appear to be backing the movement- some of them at least- but again, none speaking up publicly.
Other places with repressive governments still seem to have opposition leaders but I'm not seeing them here.
I think someone else mentioned (or linked) that Libya is tribal, and that this civil war is basically Kadafi's tribe against the four others. That could explain the absence of a unitary opposition.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 03:02:06 PM
I think someone else mentioned (or linked) that Libya is tribal, and that this civil war is basically Kadafi's tribe against the four others. That could explain the absence of a unitary opposition.
That could be it, but at least some of the government officials that defected have been from his tribe. That must be awkward.
Quote from: Maximus on March 06, 2011, 03:06:45 PM
That could be it, but at least some of the government officials that defected have been from his tribe. That must be awkward.
Family renunions will be a little tense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 03:02:06 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 06, 2011, 02:42:26 PM
What seems odd to me is that there appears to be no one stepping forward to claim leadership of the rebel movement. Some sort of governing council seems to be emerging in Benghazi but few of the members there seem to have names. The clergy appear to be backing the movement- some of them at least- but again, none speaking up publicly.
Other places with repressive governments still seem to have opposition leaders but I'm not seeing them here.
I think someone else mentioned (or linked) that Libya is tribal, and that this civil war is basically Kadafi's tribe against the four others. That could explain the absence of a unitary opposition.
That is my understanding.
The Maltese have never seen this much aircraft and ships on display since WWII. Must be an awesome place to be right now for warship fanatics.
Neil is at the docks looking for the battleships.
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2011, 12:28:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 12:27:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2011, 12:26:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 12:23:05 PM
The problem with all those Arab revolutions and civil wars is that in the end, the bad guys will inevitably win.
The Arab people are the 'bad guys'.
*whoosh*
No, I got it. I just think you're wrong.
I don't think you did.
He implied that there's no good guys so by default the winner will be the bad guys.
DO YOU SEE?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2011, 01:13:53 AM
The Rebel Alliance undisciplinedly lurches towards Surt.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motifake.com%2Fimage%2Fdemotivational-poster%2Fsmall%2F0909%2Fackbar-for-allah-admiral-ackbar-it-s-a-trap-star-wars-for-al-demotivational-poster-1252574022.jpg&hash=542a2172c0c7f4c671425ac780c7d4e98845c596)
Every Civil War Megathread needs a Sherman hijack.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericancivilwar.com%2Fnorth%2FUnion_Generals%2Fsherman.gif&hash=5437c98f13b84dae56807e6ae8a858346b75362e)
:lol:
Someone's gonna get a bombin real bad,. :ph34r:
The fighting continues to escalate. I don't get how the news can still say things like "Libya appears to be sliding toward a civil war". It's already in a state of civil war, thousands have died.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41938283/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Nah, its not quite all out civil war yet, Gadaffi is still in denial about their being opposition and is keping the gloves on to a degree.
Quote from: Tyr on March 06, 2011, 06:47:10 PM
Nah, its not quite all out civil war yet, Gadaffi is still in denial about their being opposition and is keping the gloves on to a degree.
That's true...but Rommel hasn't arrived yet.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 06, 2011, 05:35:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2011, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
Every other article says the rebels captured them.
How odd.
The rebels seems to think that every non Arab or Berber is a mercenary payed by Gaddafi. Africa oil workers has been attacked and some even lynched by locals, also wild rumors about "Christian" mercenary pilots from either Italy or Serbia being used to bomb rebel held cities. They somehow think that no true Arab muslim would fight for Gaddafi, so every outsider is suspicious...
I don't know about other foreigners in Libya, but all oil workers got there as a part of deal their governments/companies made with Gaddafi. So they are getting everything they deserve. If you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2011, 02:50:11 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 06, 2011, 05:35:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2011, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
Every other article says the rebels captured them.
How odd.
The rebels seems to think that every non Arab or Berber is a mercenary payed by Gaddafi. Africa oil workers has been attacked and some even lynched by locals, also wild rumors about "Christian" mercenary pilots from either Italy or Serbia being used to bomb rebel held cities. They somehow think that no true Arab muslim would fight for Gaddafi, so every outsider is suspicious...
I don't know about other foreigners in Libya, but all oil workers got there as a part of deal their governments/companies made with Gaddafi. So they are getting everything they deserve. If you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
What do you wake up with when you sleep with Wiktor?
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2011, 02:50:11 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 06, 2011, 05:35:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2011, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
Every other article says the rebels captured them.
How odd.
The rebels seems to think that every non Arab or Berber is a mercenary payed by Gaddafi. Africa oil workers has been attacked and some even lynched by locals, also wild rumors about "Christian" mercenary pilots from either Italy or Serbia being used to bomb rebel held cities. They somehow think that no true Arab muslim would fight for Gaddafi, so every outsider is suspicious...
I don't know about other foreigners in Libya, but all oil workers got there as a part of deal their governments/companies made with Gaddafi. So they are getting everything they deserve. If you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
Since all industry in Libya is run by Gaddafi and his buddies is all foreign work in the country "in bed" with Gaddafi, no matter if they are European, Turks, Chinese or African. Problem for the Africans is that they have been singled out due to so far unconfirmed reports of African mercenaries...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 07, 2011, 04:13:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2011, 02:50:11 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 06, 2011, 05:35:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2011, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
Every other article says the rebels captured them.
How odd.
The rebels seems to think that every non Arab or Berber is a mercenary payed by Gaddafi. Africa oil workers has been attacked and some even lynched by locals, also wild rumors about "Christian" mercenary pilots from either Italy or Serbia being used to bomb rebel held cities. They somehow think that no true Arab muslim would fight for Gaddafi, so every outsider is suspicious...
I don't know about other foreigners in Libya, but all oil workers got there as a part of deal their governments/companies made with Gaddafi. So they are getting everything they deserve. If you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
Since all industry in Libya is run by Gaddafi and his buddies is all foreign work in the country "in bed" with Gaddafi, no matter if they are European, Turks, Chinese or African. Problem for the Africans is that they have been singled out due to so far unconfirmed reports of African mercenaries...
yeah, nothing do with them being afro-africans, sure.
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2011, 02:50:11 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 06, 2011, 05:35:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2011, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
Every other article says the rebels captured them.
How odd.
The rebels seems to think that every non Arab or Berber is a mercenary payed by Gaddafi. Africa oil workers has been attacked and some even lynched by locals, also wild rumors about "Christian" mercenary pilots from either Italy or Serbia being used to bomb rebel held cities. They somehow think that no true Arab muslim would fight for Gaddafi, so every outsider is suspicious...
I don't know about other foreigners in Libya, but all oil workers got there as a part of deal their governments/companies made with Gaddafi. So they are getting everything they deserve. If you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
*sigh*
Quote from: Tamas on March 07, 2011, 05:04:39 AM
yeah, nothing do with them being afro-africans, sure.
Being Black and as such considered non- muslim/arab doesnt help either, but what can you expect from a bunch of sand hillbillies...
So ....should the West, or the UN, declare a no-flight zone over Libya and shoot down any Libyan fighters/bombers? Discuss?
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 09:51:42 AM
So ....should the West, or the UN, declare a no-flight zone over Libya and shoot down any Libyan fighters/bombers? Discuss?
No. The rebels are Gadaffi's problem and he should be allowed to deal with them.
QuoteEgypt Quietly Invades Libya
March 6, 2011: The rebellion against the Kadaffi dictatorship in Libya has not produced any official outside help, but Egypt has apparently sent some of its commandos in to help out the largely amateur rebel force. Wearing civilian clothes, the hundred or so Egyptian commandos are officially not there, but are providing crucial skills and experience to help the rebels cope with the largely irregular, and mercenary, force still controlled by the Kadaffi clan. There are also some commandos from Britain (SAS) and American (Special Forces) operators are also believed wandering around, mainly to escort diplomats or perform reconnaissance (and find out who is in charge among the rebels).
The Egyptian commandos come from Unit 777, a force that was established in the late 1970s, but underwent some ups and downs in the next two decades before achieving its current form. Today, the 250-300 -man Unit 777 is a significantly improved force. They fall under the command of the Army Commando Command, both of whom are based in Cairo. Unit 777 trains with the help of the German GSG-9, French GIGN, and American Delta Force commandos. All Unit 777 members are qualified in static-line (low altitude) airborne operations, and possibly with HALO (high altitude jumps) as well. The primary operations of Unit 777 involve the suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic radical groups. There have been rumors that Unit 777 has conducted cross-border operations, although this cannot be confirmed. If not, this foray into Libya would be the first one. The foreign commandos who have worked with Unit 777 all agree that the Egyptians have become quite competent, especially when it comes to counter-terror operations.
Any Egyptian involvement in Libya has to be handled very carefully. While the two countries fought a three day war in 1977, the real cause of tension is the fact that for thousands of years, most of Libya was considered part of Egypt. Given the fact that Libya has all that oil, and less than a tenth of the population of Egypt, well, then, you can figure out the rest. But for the moment, everyone is a revolutionary brother. At least for as long as the moment lasts, then history takes over.
I could live with Egypt conquering parts of Africa.
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 09:51:42 AM
So ....should the West, or the UN, declare a no-flight zone over Libya and shoot down any Libyan fighters/bombers? Discuss?
I believe it will have little or no effect, the Libyan air force has so far played a very limited role. And as it looks now are Gaddafi consolidating his hold on the west. While more and more pro- Gaddafi regular troops with heavy weapons appearing, do the rebels show no sign of getting organized or having some sort of unified leadership. what we are seeing now, may very well be the high watermark for the rebellion. Question is can Gaddadfi take back the eastern part of the country without air support...
edit: a map of the current situation on the ground
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg217.imageshack.us%2Fimg217%2F8386%2Flibya.jpg&hash=c197b2c34e142fd9edb4c50d45ee628440db6481)
A red x?
What do the circles mean?
Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2011, 12:40:57 PM
What do the circles mean?
presumably they represent darkies with guns.
Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2011, 12:40:57 PM
What do the circles mean?
The size is how large the population centers is.
Green: Gaddafi controlled.
Brown: Rebel controlled.
Yellow: Control unclear/ongoing fighting.
Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2011, 12:40:57 PM
What do the circles mean?
size of circle = importance of city in pop.
red= rebels
green = government.
How is this affecting sales of his Little Green Book?
CNN Breaking News: NATO starts 24/7 aerial surveillance of Libya...
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 07, 2011, 02:46:51 PM
How is this affecting sales of his Little Green Book?
That depends, are they running out of toilet paper?
Edit: never mind, this is the arab world.. of course they are running out of toilet paper...
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 06, 2011, 06:50:32 PM
That's true...but Rommel hasn't arrived yet.
Will Gadhafi give him the one additional division he kept asking for??
Gadhafi you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOOOOOOOOOK!
Quote from: Caliga on March 07, 2011, 05:13:47 PM
Gadhafi you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOOOOOOOOOK!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Green_Book
Eh I would rather read Rommel's.
Time for a no fly zone in my opinion.
http://www.slate.com/id/2287506
QuoteAmerican Inaction Favors Qaddafi
The administration's inadequate response to the crisis in Libya reveals a lack of courage and principle.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, March 7, 2011, at 10:50 AM ET
Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.Libyan leader Muammar QaddafiOur common speech contains numberless verbs with which to describe the infliction of violence or cruelty or brutality on others. It only really contains one common verb that describes the effect of violence or cruelty or brutality on those who, rather than suffering from it, inflict it. That verb is the verb to brutalize. A slaveholder visits servitude on his slaves, lashes them, degrades them, exploits them, and maltreats them. In the process, he himself becomes brutalized. This is a simple distinction to understand and an easy one to observe. In the recent past, idle usage has threatened to erode it. Last week was an especially bad one for those who think the difference worth preserving.
PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...REPRINTSSINGLE PAGE
FacebookDiggRedditStumbleUponCLOSE
Dissenting from the Supreme Court majority that had upheld the First Amendment rights of the ghoulish Westboro Baptist Church, Justice Samuel Alito opined that in order to have vigorous public expression, "it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims." And on Saturday the New York Times ran a front-page headline over a report from Tripoli: "Qaddafi Brutalizes Foes, Armed or Defenseless."
Alito's hold on English is pitifully weak at the best of times, and his formulation could be construed as meaning that those whose feelings had been outraged were subject to the equivalent of blunt physical force. The Times did not commit this error, and at least preserved some of the relationship between the word and its origins. But of course the result was a half-baked euphemism. Col. Muammar Qaddafi's conduct is far worse than merely brutal—it is homicidal and sadistic and megalomaniac ("firing on unarmed protesters in front of international news media" was cited in the first paragraph) and even if a headline can't convey all that, it can at least try to capture some of it. Observe, then, what happens when the term is misapplied. The error first robs the language of a useful expression and then ends up by gravely understating the revolting reality it seeks to describe.
Advertisement
The other possible meaning of the verb to brutalize is that you may succeed, at length, in making others into brutes. Russian serfdom was sometimes depicted in this way, as a cruel system that had the effect of reducing humans to the status of beasts. Again, that cannot conceivably be the intention in either of the above cases. It is important, then, to hang on to the original intent (take note, Justice Alito) of the expression and to the more accurate and discriminating choice of language it permits us.
Far from being brutalized by four decades of domination by a theatrical madman, the Libyan people appear fairly determined not to sink to his level and to be done with him and his horrible kin. They also seem, at the time of writing, to want this achievement to represent their own unaided effort. Admirable as this is, it doesn't excuse us from responsibility. The wealth that Qaddafi is squandering is the by-product of decades of collusion with foreign contractors. The weapons that he is employing against civilians were not made in Libya; they were sold to him by sophisticated nations. Other kinds of weaponry have been deployed by Qaddafi in the past against civil aviation and to supply a panoply of nihilistic groups as far away as Ireland and the Philippines. This, too, gives us a different kind of stake in the outcome. Even if Qaddafi basked in the unanimous adoration of his people, he would not be entitled to the export of violence. Moreover, his indiscriminate barbarism, and the effect of its subsequent refugee crisis on neighboring countries such as Egypt and Tunisia, ipso facto constitutes an intervention in the internal affairs of others and a threat to peace in the region. In arguing that he no longer possesses legal sovereignty over "his" country, and that he should relinquish such power as remains to him, we are almost spoiled for choice as to legal and moral pretexts.
And yet there is a palpable reluctance, especially on the part of the Obama administration, to look these things in the face. Even after decades of enmity with this evil creep, our military and intelligence services turn out not even to have had a contingency plan. So it seems we must improvise. But does one have to go over all the arguments again, as if Rwanda and Bosnia and Kurdistan had never happened? It seems, especially when faced with the adamancy for drift and the resolve to be irresolute of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, that one does. Very well, then. Doing nothing is not the absence of a policy; it is, in fact, the adoption of one. "Neutrality" favors the side with the biggest arsenal. "Nonintervention" is a form of interference. If you will the end—and President Barack Obama has finally said that Qaddafi should indeed go—then to that extent you will the means.
Libya is a country with barely 6 million inhabitants. By any computation, however cold and actuarial, the regime of its present dictator cannot possibly last very much longer. As a matter of pure realism, the post-Qaddafi epoch is upon us whether we choose to welcome the fact or not. The immediate task is therefore to limit the amount of damage Qaddafi can do and sharply minimize the number of people he can murder. Whatever the character of the successor system turns out to be, it can hardly be worsened if we show it positive signs of friendship and solidarity. But the pilots of Qaddafi's own air force, who flew their planes to Malta rather than let themselves be used against civilians, have demonstrated more courage and principle than the entire U.S. Sixth Fleet.
There's another consequence to our continuing passivity. I am sure I am not alone in feeling rather queasy about being forced to watch the fires in Tripoli and Benghazi as if I were an impotent spectator. Indifference of this kind to the lives of others can have a coarsening effect. It can lower one's threshold of sympathy. If protracted unduly, it might even become brutalizing.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 07, 2011, 03:33:58 PM
CNN Breaking News: NATO starts 24/7 aerial surveillance of Libya...
Is that important? NATO can surveil all they want.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 07, 2011, 05:41:29 PM
Neutrality" favors the side with the biggest arsenal. "Nonintervention" is a form of interference.
Wow. What a bunch of double-think bullshit.
:huh: Selective inaction can, and sometimes should, be construed as a kind of action.
Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2011, 05:59:44 PM
:huh: Selective inaction can, and sometimes should, be construed as a kind of action.
Perhaps, but not when it comes to making war whenever Chris Hitchens want you to.
UK & France are drafting a no fly zone resolution. :)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41952726/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 07, 2011, 07:02:04 PM
UK & France are drafting a no fly zone resolution. :)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41952726/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
I'm hoping for a veto.
Mind you, even if it passes, it doesn't mean anything.
Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2011, 05:59:44 PM
:huh: Selective inaction can, and sometimes should, be construed as a kind of action.
Sure it could be. However that is not the same thing as saying 'non-intervention is a form of intervention'...so it is impossible not to intervene? It is impossible not to favor one side over the other? So we might as well go to war? Nonsense.
Quote from: Viking on March 07, 2011, 04:28:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 07, 2011, 02:46:51 PM
How is this affecting sales of his Little Green Book?
That depends, are they running out of toilet paper?
Edit: never mind, this is the arab world.. of course they are running out of toilet paper...
Many don't use it.
I wipe my ass with pages from the Quran. :cool:
WTF is Obama waiting for?
This seems pretty damn simple. There is a revolution against a despot, and the people revolting are pro-democracy.
Why aren't we helping them, if in fact they want our help - and reports seem to indicate that they do in fact want that help.
RT, the Kremlin's propaganda wing, puts out this report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FGrrGTrQaQ which apparently shows the inaccurate reporting of what they term the so-called war. They also outright accuse Al Jazeera of promoting the rebels and helping them with their reports.
Al Jazeera, on the other hand, reports this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm6UEGbqofM where they openly say that it "resembles a civil war."
So what the fuck, man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLYryzLdagM RT making fun of CNN.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 11:10:11 AM
WTF is Obama waiting for?
This seems pretty damn simple. There is a revolution against a despot, and the people revolting are pro-democracy.
Why aren't we helping them, if in fact they want our help - and reports seem to indicate that they do in fact want that help.
They don't seem to want boots on the ground, although that may change, but yea they do seem to want air cover.
I've been suspicious of populist movements, but I'm more inclined to support one that isn't started by a demagogue.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 11:10:11 AM
WTF is Obama waiting for?
This seems pretty damn simple. There is a revolution against a despot, and the people revolting are pro-democracy.
Why aren't we helping them, if in fact they want our help - and reports seem to indicate that they do in fact want that help.
Neocons. :bleeding:
Is that really a neocon position? I thought neocons always acted in America's best self-interest, and I'm not sure if deposing Gadhafi is actually in our best interest, especially if we don't know what sort of government the opposition would replace Gadhafi's regime with.
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2011, 12:32:18 PM
Is that really a neocon position? I thought neocons always acted in America's best self-interest, and I'm not sure if deposing Gadhafi is actually in our best interest, especially if we don't know what sort of government the opposition would replace Gadhafi's regime with.
I think neocons are more evangelistic than that. Remember they were originally liberals who wanted a more activist foreign policy.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 11:10:11 AM
WTF is Obama waiting for?
This seems pretty damn simple. There is a revolution against a despot, and the people revolting are pro-democracy.
Why aren't we helping them, if in fact they want our help - and reports seem to indicate that they do in fact want that help.
1. It takes a while to set up a no-fly-zone. It's not something you want to rush into, and moreover it's nice to have diplomatic cover in the form of a UN resolution.
2. At least some of the rebels appear to be pretty xenophobic. Putting boots on the ground is not, IMO, a good idea, and we'll want to make sure the rebels A. can win and B. would put in place an acceptable government. Heck, the rebels aren't even unified - there's no one person or group we can talk with or cooperate with. Setting up a NFZ and bombing a few places won't help if the rebels are disorganized and unable to take advantage of it, or even collapse into infighting.
That said, it would be nice if Obama pushed harder. Even if it was just a "Ghaddaffi should step down now" statement/ultimatum.
Yeah... how much you want to bet that if Gadhafi is overthrown, the rebels will immediately start fighting each other to determine who succeeds him? This could be another Somalia in the making. :)
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 08, 2011, 12:45:53 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 11:10:11 AM
WTF is Obama waiting for?
This seems pretty damn simple. There is a revolution against a despot, and the people revolting are pro-democracy.
Why aren't we helping them, if in fact they want our help - and reports seem to indicate that they do in fact want that help.
1. It takes a while to set up a no-fly-zone. It's not something you want to rush into, and moreover it's nice to have diplomatic cover in the form of a UN resolution.
2. At least some of the rebels appear to be pretty xenophobic. Putting boots on the ground is not, IMO, a good idea, and we'll want to make sure the rebels A. can win and B. would put in place an acceptable government. Heck, the rebels aren't even unified - there's no one person or group we can talk with or cooperate with. Setting up a NFZ and bombing a few places won't help if the rebels are disorganized and unable to take advantage of it, or even collapse into infighting.
That said, it would be nice if Obama pushed harder. Even if it was just a "Ghaddaffi should step down now" statement/ultimatum.
I am not advocating for boots on the ground. Or a no-fly zone. Or really anything in particular beyond *something* other than platitudes.
I'll leave the specifics about WHAT to do to others, but it seems like we are going to do nothing at all. Maybe stuff is going on behind the scenes, and if so - great. I will be happy to be wrong, but right now it seems like the US is basically terrified of doing anything at all.
I know we are going to get blasted no matter what we do, or don't do. So we might as well get blasted for doing the right thing, rather than do nothing in a vain attempt to not piss someone off.
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2011, 12:50:35 PM
Yeah... how much you want to bet that if Gadhafi is overthrown, the rebels will immediately start fighting each other to determine who succeeds him? This could be another Somalia in the making. :)
Shrug. So be it. Revolutions are messy things.
I don't like the idea that unless we can predict success, we should sit on our hands and do nothing.
Obama doesn't want his Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked. :(
Judging from my experience playing M2TW and EU3, Cyrenaica is a really horrible place to be fighting in. It's just a barren wasteland with low support limits and long movement times. I don't blame Obama for not wanting to get involved.
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2011, 12:54:07 PM
Obama doesn't want his Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked. :(
:lol:
@DG You probably have more experience dealing with Libya than Obama does. :hmm:
Quote from: citizen k on March 08, 2011, 12:42:40 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2011, 12:32:18 PM
Is that really a neocon position? I thought neocons always acted in America's best self-interest, and I'm not sure if deposing Gadhafi is actually in our best interest, especially if we don't know what sort of government the opposition would replace Gadhafi's regime with.
I think neocons are more evangelistic than that. Remember they were originally liberals who wanted a more activist foreign policy.
:whistle:
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2011, 12:56:24 PM
@DG You probably have more experience dealing with Libya than Obama does. :hmm:
Unfortunately, I'm not eligible to be a president, so we'll have to make do with Obama.
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2011, 12:32:18 PM
Is that really a neocon position? I thought neocons always acted in America's best self-interest, and I'm not sure if deposing Gadhafi is actually in our best interest, especially if we don't know what sort of government the opposition would replace Gadhafi's regime with.
So it'll be like the Federalists and Anti-Federalists...only with AK-47s, RPGs, and Islam.
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2011, 12:54:07 PM
Obama doesn't want his Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked. :(
But... will he have more chance of having it revoked if he intervenes, or stays out?? :hmm:
Quote from: KRonn on March 08, 2011, 02:07:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2011, 12:54:07 PM
Obama doesn't want his Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked. :(
But... will he have more chance of having it revoked if he intervenes, or stays out?? :hmm:
Well, he did nothing to get it to begin with, so I figure he is thinking doing nothing is the best way to hang onto it...
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2011, 12:50:35 PM
Yeah... how much you want to bet that if Gadhafi is overthrown, the rebels will immediately start fighting each other to determine who succeeds him? This could be another Somalia in the making. :)
Somalia doesn't have oil. Lot's of oil. And economic connections with Europe.
I thought of the whole oil thing after I posted Wags. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 12:52:16 PM
I know we are going to get blasted no matter what we do, or don't do. So we might as well get blasted for doing the right thing, rather than do nothing in a vain attempt to not piss someone off.
Participating in wars that are not our own is the morally right thing to do? Why? Just because it is there?
Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2011, 04:23:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 12:52:16 PM
I know we are going to get blasted no matter what we do, or don't do. So we might as well get blasted for doing the right thing, rather than do nothing in a vain attempt to not piss someone off.
Participating in wars that are not our own is the morally right thing to do? Why? Just because it is there?
Who said anything about participating?
But participating in a war that is not our own *can* certainly be the right thing to do - whether this is an example of that or not is certainly open to debate.
That being said, the terms under which participating in a war that is not our own COULD BE the right thing to do would generally include some clear moral distinction in getting involved (as opposed to economic or political reasons), some reason to suspect that favoring one side over the other would result in the betterment of the people involved on some moral scale (in this case, is not advancing freedom and democracy a moral goal?), etc., etc.
Of course, there are all kinds of practical realities involved as well. But I find the basic dismissal of the very concept of getting involved in others fights for freedom as being a priori immoral rather curious. Surely getting involved in any war, our own or others, can be moral. Or it can be not moral.
Why get involved and invite another possible Iraq/Afghanistan-type situation?
A far bigger priority for America should be reducing its deficit, and not spending billions on costly adventures.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 04:28:33 PM
Of course, there are all kinds of practical realities involved as well. But I find the basic dismissal of the very concept of getting involved in others fights for freedom as being a priori immoral rather curious. Surely getting involved in any war, our own or others, can be moral. Or it can be not moral.
I question if we can really tell if it is a fight for freedom. Certainly one of the sides will WANT us to think they are fighting for freedom (see Iraqi Shiites prior to the Iraq invasion) just like Ghadafi is pitifully trying to get us to think he is fighting the war on terror.
I am not even saying it is immoral to get involved...I am merely questoning the moral imperative to do so. In my opinion our only moral responsibility to the international community is to ensure that the conflict stays within Libya's borders and to provide humanitarian aid if needed and necessary.
But I am hoping the US can work to limit its international commitments especially ones like Libya that could turn into long term involvements.
Finally, I believe the rebels will almost certainly win.
Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2011, 04:46:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 04:28:33 PM
Of course, there are all kinds of practical realities involved as well. But I find the basic dismissal of the very concept of getting involved in others fights for freedom as being a priori immoral rather curious. Surely getting involved in any war, our own or others, can be moral. Or it can be not moral.
I question if we can really tell if it is a fight for freedom. Certainly one of the sides will WANT us to think they are fighting for freedom (see Iraqi Shiites prior to the Iraq invasion) just like Ghadafi is pitifully trying to get us to think he is fighting the war on terror.
I am not even saying it is immoral to get involved...I am merely questoning the moral imperative to do so. In my opinion our only moral responsibility to the international community is to ensure that the conflict stays within Libya's borders and to provide humanitarian aid if needed and necessary.
But I am hoping the US can work to limit its international commitments especially ones like Libya that could turn into long term involvements.
These are all good reason to move with care and caution.
A no-fly zone sounds all noble and clean until you ask yourself what we're supposed to do if the rebels don't win quickly.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 12:52:16 PM
I'll leave the specifics about WHAT to do to others
But that is the stickiest part. I think to be fair, you have to suggest what is that you want to be done that isn't being done beyond "something"
Mummar's forces seemed to have drunk some Tigerblood and seem to be kicking some rebel ass.
The moment we get involved, even with a no fly zone, we take on some responsibility for events as they unfold, and thus risk getting drawn into things further. Fuck that.
The morality of getting involved is in any event so murky that it behooves us to examine it solely from a realpolitik perspective - to which the only answer right now can be, again, fuck no.
Probably the biggest problem with not getting involved, is Gadhafi winning.
With all the Western denouncements, once back in complete control, he'd be absolutely insufferable after that.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2011, 08:00:06 PM
Probably the biggest problem with not getting involved, is Gadhafi winning.
With all the Western denouncements, once back in complete control, he'd be absolutely insufferable after that.
Yeah, I've been thinking the same. After a lot of work at getting him onside over the past decades we've really undone a lot of that in the past month.
That and we're never going to get a better chance to be rid of him.
However, I have read elsewhere that Gadaffi was planning a Francoesque retirement- return of the monarchy, creation of a democracy, etc... which would be nice. But thats assuming it was true to begin with let alone now...
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2011, 08:00:06 PM
Probably the biggest problem with not getting involved, is Gadhafi winning.
With all the Western denouncements, once back in complete control, he'd be absolutely insufferable after that.
But he will be totally entertaining.
Quote from: Tyr on March 08, 2011, 08:07:03 PM
However, I have read elsewhere that Gadaffi was planning a Francoesque retirement- return of the monarchy, creation of a democracy, etc... which would be nice. But thats assuming it was true to begin with let alone now...
The guy is a lunatic. There's no way to predict his behavior, even when based on what he may or may not have said at some point in the past.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2011, 08:00:06 PM
Probably the biggest problem with not getting involved, is Gadhafi winning.
With all the Western denouncements, once back in complete control, he'd be absolutely insufferable after that.
What's wrong with Gadhafi? He's a hoot.
We'd never be able to take the sanctions off* again without looking like dumbasses, and he'd probably go right back into terrorist shenanigans. There could be no incentive not to. And he'd have no reason not to supply them with all sorts of annoying/deadly (for us) crap.
*The Euros would probably buy his oil again eventually, however.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 08, 2011, 07:35:07 PM
The moment we get involved, even with a no fly zone, we take on some responsibility for events as they unfold, and thus risk getting drawn into things further. Fuck that.
Meh, I live in America and we are burdened with responsibility whether we act or don't act. Hardly a compelling reason to do nothing.
Quote from: garbon on March 08, 2011, 08:56:55 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 08, 2011, 07:35:07 PM
The moment we get involved, even with a no fly zone, we take on some responsibility for events as they unfold, and thus risk getting drawn into things further. Fuck that.
Meh, I live in America and we are burdened with responsibility whether we act or don't act. Hardly a compelling reason to do nothing.
Indeed. We'll be blamed for it somehow.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 08, 2011, 09:21:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 08, 2011, 08:56:55 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 08, 2011, 07:35:07 PM
The moment we get involved, even with a no fly zone, we take on some responsibility for events as they unfold, and thus risk getting drawn into things further. Fuck that.
Meh, I live in America and we are burdened with responsibility whether we act or don't act. Hardly a compelling reason to do nothing.
Indeed. We'll be blamed for it somehow.
If Gaddaffi wins we'll be blamed for not taking him down. If we take him down we'll be bashed for being evil imperialists. If we're going to be bashed either way I'd rather do something that has the possibility of a positive outcome. Therefore, I'm in favor of a no-fly zone and perhaps some airstrikes.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 08, 2011, 09:41:36 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 08, 2011, 09:21:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 08, 2011, 08:56:55 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 08, 2011, 07:35:07 PM
The moment we get involved, even with a no fly zone, we take on some responsibility for events as they unfold, and thus risk getting drawn into things further. Fuck that.
Meh, I live in America and we are burdened with responsibility whether we act or don't act. Hardly a compelling reason to do nothing.
Indeed. We'll be blamed for it somehow.
If Gaddaffi wins we'll be blamed for not taking him down. If we take him down we'll be bashed for being evil imperialists. If we're going to be bashed either way I'd rather do something that has the possibility of a positive outcome. Therefore, I'm in favor of a no-fly zone and perhaps some airstrikes.
On who? The rebels, as have been pointed out, are a mob. Will you be in favor of airstrikes on them if a bunch of crazies take over and nuke DC?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 08, 2011, 09:51:58 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 08, 2011, 09:41:36 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 08, 2011, 09:21:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 08, 2011, 08:56:55 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 08, 2011, 07:35:07 PM
The moment we get involved, even with a no fly zone, we take on some responsibility for events as they unfold, and thus risk getting drawn into things further. Fuck that.
Meh, I live in America and we are burdened with responsibility whether we act or don't act. Hardly a compelling reason to do nothing.
Indeed. We'll be blamed for it somehow.
If Gaddaffi wins we'll be blamed for not taking him down. If we take him down we'll be bashed for being evil imperialists. If we're going to be bashed either way I'd rather do something that has the possibility of a positive outcome. Therefore, I'm in favor of a no-fly zone and perhaps some airstrikes.
On who? The rebels, as have been pointed out, are a mob. Will you be in favor of airstrikes on them if a bunch of crazies take over and nuke DC?
I haven't seen the news story about Gadhafi dispersing crowds with nuclear weapons.
I highly doubt that a No Fly zone with UN backing will take effect. Mainly becourse the reason for setting up such a No Fly zone isnt humanitarian, but rather some member states wish for a regime change. To many member states fear that they could be the next target of such a regime change, China and Russia doesnt believe this kind of regime change either, especially as many of their friends could be next...
Why can't the Euro handle this no-fly zone bullshit? It's in their backyard.
Quote from: Kleves on March 09, 2011, 10:09:35 AM
Why can't the Euro handle this no-fly zone bullshit? It's in their backyard.
They need big daddy to hold their widdle hands.
Quote from: Kleves on March 09, 2011, 10:09:35 AM
Why can't the Euro handle this no-fly zone bullshit? It's in their backyard.
With out the UN, no way. We are talking about nations that couldnt fire back at Bosnian Serbs in self defense without first calling UN HQ in New York...
Do any of the Euroes have an air force that could take on Libya?
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2011, 10:20:15 AM
Do any of the Euroes have an air force that could take on Libya?
France seems to be the only one, not sure about the UK with all their cutbacks...
According to wiki, the UK has 130 Tornadoes and 64 Eurofighters. The Wops should have a sizable air force too.
I assume Germany would wet their pants at the mere thought of dropping a bomb on somebody. Goddamn pussies.
Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2011, 04:23:41 PM
Participating in wars that are not our own is the morally right thing to do? Why? Just because it is there?
Berkut is terrified of the idea of doing nothing, so he just wants the US to do
something.
He will criticize whatever is done, of course.
Quote from: Kleves on March 09, 2011, 10:09:35 AM
Why can't the Euro handle this no-fly zone bullshit? It's in their backyard.
Europe would be divided as to which side to take.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2011, 10:31:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2011, 04:23:41 PM
Participating in wars that are not our own is the morally right thing to do? Why? Just because it is there?
Berkut is terrified of the idea of doing nothing, so he just wants the US to do something.
He will criticize whatever is done, of course.
grumbler is correct - the idea of doing nothing has me waking in cold sweats at night.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 09, 2011, 10:27:38 AM
I assume Germany would wet their pants at the mere thought of dropping a bomb on somebody. Goddamn pussies.
When you face General Patton, you are scarred FOR ALL ETERNITY as a result. :menace:
Well, if you impose an effective no-fly zone then you'll have to destroy Gadaffi's anti-aircraft missiles and air force. Gadaffi will then cut off oil and gas to the West and take hostage any Westerners stupid enough to remain in Libya. And then the whole thing escalates to the point where you have no choice but to invade, fight your way through to Tripoli and depose Gadaffi. :hmm:
It's been done before.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 09, 2011, 11:36:56 AM
Well, if you impose an effective no-fly zone then you'll have to destroy Gadaffi's anti-aircraft missiles and air force. Gadaffi will then cut off oil and gas to the West and take hostage any Westerners stupid enough to remain in Libya. And then the whole thing escalates to the point where you have no choice but to invade, fight your way through to Tripoli and depose Gadaffi. :hmm:
That's terrifying!
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2011, 10:31:34 AM
Berkut is terrified of the idea of doing nothing, so he just wants the US to do something.
It's his inner McCainiac bubbling through.
As much as I criticized the administration for how it handled Egypt, I generally approve with how they've handled Libya. I'd like to see Gadhafi gone, but I don't see how our national interest is served by getting directly involved.
It's not. It will just generate more terrorism directed at us IMO.
I felt the same way about Egypt FWIW. I have a very cynical view of all of these protest movements. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 12:36:01 PM
It's not. It will just generate more terrorism directed at us IMO.
I felt the same way about Egypt FWIW. I have a very cynical view of all of these protest movements. :hmm:
I'm conflicted. Generally I'd prefer a secular autocrat over most other likely forms of gov't. in that region, but it was time for Mubarak & Gadhafi to go-- their continued rule would only further embolden radical islamist elements. I say let them get their revolutionary fervor out of their systems, let (or help) a new secular strongman emerge, and then buy him off like we did with Mubarak.
One thing that strikes me about Gadhafi btw is that he turned out to be even crazier than we thought he was in the 80s.
As far as policy is concerned, I don't see many likely immediate scenarios where it would be wise to intervene. Most likely it will backfire, and bombs cost money. If we could figure a clean way to get our hands on all that oil, then I might change my mind ;)
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 12:36:01 PM
It's not. It will just generate more terrorism directed at us IMO.
I felt the same way about Egypt FWIW. I have a very cynical view of all of these protest movements. :hmm:
What could possibly go wrong? <_<
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
As far as policy is concerned, I don't see many likely immediate scenarios where it would be wise to intervene. Most likely it will backfire, and bombs cost money. If we could figure a clean way to get our hands on all that oil, then I might change my mind ;)
Bombs cost money. Use up the arabs. The dead cost nothing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/09/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110309
QuoteForces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi regained control of the center of Zawiyah on Wednesday, after using tanks and snipers to drive rebels out of their stronghold in the western city's main square, residents said.
Is Gaddafi bi-winning?
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2011, 10:07:29 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 08, 2011, 09:51:58 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 08, 2011, 09:41:36 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 08, 2011, 09:21:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 08, 2011, 08:56:55 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 08, 2011, 07:35:07 PM
The moment we get involved, even with a no fly zone, we take on some responsibility for events as they unfold, and thus risk getting drawn into things further. Fuck that.
Meh, I live in America and we are burdened with responsibility whether we act or don't act. Hardly a compelling reason to do nothing.
Indeed. We'll be blamed for it somehow.
If Gaddaffi wins we'll be blamed for not taking him down. If we take him down we'll be bashed for being evil imperialists. If we're going to be bashed either way I'd rather do something that has the possibility of a positive outcome. Therefore, I'm in favor of a no-fly zone and perhaps some airstrikes.
On who? The rebels, as have been pointed out, are a mob. Will you be in favor of airstrikes on them if a bunch of crazies take over and nuke DC?
I haven't seen the news story about Gadhafi dispersing crowds with nuclear weapons.
You are obviously a slave to the Lamestream media then.
How the fuck do you disperse a crowd that has scored nukes?
Quote from: The Brain on March 09, 2011, 02:04:42 PM
How the fuck do you disperse a crowd that has scored nukes?
Nuke 'em from orbit.
to make a no-fly zone: apparently destroy the refineries in Ras Lanuf (sp?) and that should present the airforce with significant fuel problems.
at least: that is what I heard
Quote from: Cecil on March 09, 2011, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
As far as policy is concerned, I don't see many likely immediate scenarios where it would be wise to intervene. Most likely it will backfire, and bombs cost money. If we could figure a clean way to get our hands on all that oil, then I might change my mind ;)
Bombs cost money. Use up the arabs. The dead cost nothing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstarsmedia.ign.com%2Fstars%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F945%2F945054%2Fpatrick-mcgoohan-20090114043713294-000.jpg&hash=912119b3ded7f0a30451a6e01481f52b3af623ef)
Breed them out?
Libya is a small country in terms of population. While it is too bad anyone suffers, it only matters to us if it cuts off oil or becomes a terrorist haven. It isn't likely it will do the former (they need to sell their oil more than we need to buy it) and we can always intervene if it becomes the latter (and who knows the ways that could happen--if Gaddafi can hold on he will certainly have a tenuous grasp and becoming the next terrorist leader probably isn't his strongest play).
Quote from: Maximus on March 09, 2011, 11:47:45 AM
It's been done before.
Oh absolutely, from the shores of Tripoli, etc. I suppose you could start an air campaign over western Libya, and use special forces embedded with the rebels to call in air strikes like when the Taliban were being overthrown.
And then Al Jazeera will start showing footage of dead babies killed by infidel Western imperialists and those most loudly calling for action now will dust off their No Blood for Oil placards. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWvVtsEYYqA
A ton of the rebels are wearing forest-area camo. Wtf, Arabs. Learn to get some desert camo, you morons.
We have got,
the Neutron bomb,
and they,
have not.
Sersly. It's about time you started using those things. What's the point of paying moolah for somethign that's just going to sit there?
why use the neutron bomb when a few satellite photos, awacs radar messages, threats of a no fly zone and a few tons of out of date saudi army surplus will do?
Quote from: Viking on March 09, 2011, 05:21:47 PM
why use the neutron bomb when a few satellite photos, awacs radar messages, threats of a no fly zone and a few tons of out of date saudi army surplus will do?
:mad:
Why, your solution will hardly result in any arab deaths 'tall. :mad:
A major problem with helping the "rebels" is you may actually provoke a deep civil war. A disorganized bunch of rebels with different tribal leaderswith some external help but not any troops on the ground seems like a recipe for a somalia type situation.
I don't understand the point of intervening. No one would want to get involved if this was a country a few parallels to the south. There isn't an angle where we ensure there won't be terrorists in the country. We don't guarantee a good outcome or even a better one.
I was doing a thought exercise while on the can trying to think up what forces are available to intervene in libya. American ground forces, as I don't care about the Euros.
Besides the usual Special Forces:
A brigade of the 82nd from CONUS
A heavy brigade from Europe (empty out the nearly empty POMCUS sites)
the MEU afloat in the med.
Everything else is either committed, recently committed (like the 173rd in Italy) or would just take too long to move.
Then I passed out from passing a turd the size of the USS New Jersey.
Why don't the other Arab powers or the African Union deal with this? Why does everything around the world have to be America and Europe's problem? Can't China, the premier colonizer of Africa today, get in on this, instead?
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 09, 2011, 01:48:48 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/09/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110309
QuoteForces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi regained control of the center of Zawiyah on Wednesday, after using tanks and snipers to drive rebels out of their stronghold in the western city's main square, residents said.
Is Gaddafi bi-winning?
Rebel counterattack has pushed them back out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41983346/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 09, 2011, 06:12:08 PM
Why don't the other Arab powers or the African Union deal with this? Why does everything around the world have to be America and Europe's problem? Can't China, the premier colonizer of Africa today, get in on this, instead?
It would be hilarious if the Chinese stepped in and intervened. I can't imagine how we'd react to something like that.
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 06:49:34 PM
It would be hilarious if the Chinese stepped in and intervened. I can't imagine how we'd react to something like that.
We'd be really, really impressed that they managed to fly Mig 21s all the way to Libya.
They could always shoot ballistic missiles from their subs. :)
Damn, almost like a real war. I wonder what the casualty toll is. Are we talking a few hundred guys each time, or something more significant? I mean, I know the Gadaffi army is relatively small at only about 50,000 or so.
I haven't heard or seen anything resembling an order of battle. Anyone else not named Mongers?
@JonasSalk Funny you should say that, as it looks like they are getting ready to rename the "2011 Libyan uprising" article on Wikipedia to "Libyan Civil War". Also, from looking at the Wiki article, the death toll estimate seems to range from 1,000-10,000 total right now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2011, 06:56:24 PM
I haven't heard or seen anything resembling an order of battle. Anyone else not named Mongers?
Only thing I've seen is that each son has his own security unit, sized from a battalion to a brigade. Haven't really seen hard number of African mercs or how the Libyan army shook out. Just that Mummar's boys have plenty of heavy weapons and AFV's at their disposal.
Also, from the Wiki article (obviously taken with a grain of salt since it's Wikipedia) it seems Egypt has quietly gotten involved with the rebels. Not surprising I guess, since IIRC Egypt and (Gadhafi's) Libya have had a pretty hostile relationship for quite a while now.
A civil war with all this foreign involvement reminds me of the Spanish Civil War. :cool: LOL will Gadhafi: crush them like Franco.
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 07:02:41 PM
A civil war with all this foreign involvement reminds me of the Spanish Civil War. :cool: LOL will Gadhafi: crush them like Franco.
Gadhafi doesn't have any friends like Franco did.:contract:
Yes he does. Chavez will send: El Condor Legion. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 07:02:41 PM
A civil war with all this foreign involvement reminds me of the Spanish Civil War. :cool: LOL will Gadhafi: crush them like Franco.
Franco was the rebel.
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 07:11:16 PM
Yes he does. Chavez will send: El Condor Legion. :)
I forgot all about him. Wouldn't that be fascinating if he sent some boys over?
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 06:56:58 PM
@JonasSalk Funny you should say that, as it looks like they are getting ready to rename the "2011 Libyan uprising" article on Wikipedia to "Libyan Civil War". Also, from looking at the Wiki article, the death toll estimate seems to range from 1,000-10,000 total right now.
Yeah, according to conflicting articles, the Libyan military's strength is either 119,000 active personnel (Military of Libya page) or 10,000-12,000 (Al Jazeera estimate from the 2011 Libyan Uprising page).
So what the fuck. Did the Libyan military shrink to 1/10th its size?
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 09, 2011, 07:29:03 PM
Yeah, according to conflicting articles, the Libyan military's strength is either 119,000 active personnel (Military of Libya page) or 10,000-12,000 (Al Jazeera estimate from the 2011 Libyan Uprising page).
So what the fuck. Did the Libyan military shrink to 1/10th its size?
It's very concievable that the conscript portion disbanded themselves in the Iraqi fashion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2011, 07:14:28 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 07:11:16 PM
Yes he does. Chavez will send: El Condor Legion. :)
I forgot all about him. Wouldn't that be fascinating if he sent some boys over?
We could interdict them. Before they left. :)
Quote from: Habbaku on March 09, 2011, 07:13:30 PM
Franco was the rebel.
I know, but there's no Franco figure on the opposition side yet.
All of the "rebel commanders" that I've seen are refusing to show their faces (duh) and don't seem to be genuine commanders in any sense that they're experienced at this sort of thing. Then again, I am hearing reports that the rebels are slowly becoming more disciplined and trained as the days go on. Less a mob and more of a genuine force in their own right.
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 09, 2011, 08:44:32 PM
All of the "rebel commanders" that I've seen are refusing to show their faces (duh) and don't seem to be genuine commanders in any sense that they're experienced at this sort of thing. Then again, I am hearing reports that the rebels are slowly becoming more disciplined and trained as the days go on. Less a mob and more of a genuine force in their own right.
I think the commanders are the ones who just managed to get themselves interviewed on TV. The truth is this is a decentralized mass movement like AA or Craigs list.
Nothing 6 months of tribal civil war won't fix. The shit will float to the top.
Al Jazeera is following them around and basically egging them on, so no surprise there.
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 07:11:16 PM
Yes he does. Chavez will send: El Condor Legion. :)
We should hope that Chavez and his rotten regime are sometime soon on the rebellion list. :ph34r:
I can't wait until China vetos the No Fly Zone resolution citing Libyan sovereignty.
If they get the resolution off quickly enough, the Libyan delegation to the UN might actually be either voting for or advocating for the resolution.
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 06:49:34 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 09, 2011, 06:12:08 PM
Why don't the other Arab powers or the African Union deal with this? Why does everything around the world have to be America and Europe's problem? Can't China, the premier colonizer of Africa today, get in on this, instead?
It would be hilarious if the Chinese stepped in and intervened. I can't imagine how we'd react to something like that.
China's number one, and probably only concern about Libya, is to get its 30,000 citizens out. Since that has already been accomplished, Libya is now in the "who cares" category from the Chinese perspective. Sure, they lost some lucrative construction contracts, but the Chinese companies can afford such loses these days. China can buy oil from someone else. I don't even think Libya sells a lot of oil to China in the first place.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 09, 2011, 10:42:44 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 06:49:34 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 09, 2011, 06:12:08 PM
Why don't the other Arab powers or the African Union deal with this? Why does everything around the world have to be America and Europe's problem? Can't China, the premier colonizer of Africa today, get in on this, instead?
It would be hilarious if the Chinese stepped in and intervened. I can't imagine how we'd react to something like that.
China's number one, and probably only concern about Libya, is to get its 30,000 citizens out. Since that has already been accomplished, Libya is now in the "who cares" category from the Chinese perspective. Sure, they lost some lucrative construction contracts, but the Chinese companies can afford such loses these days. China can buy oil from someone else. I don't even think Libya sells a lot of oil to China in the first place.
China probably figures that anything worth intervening in, will be done by the U.S. anyway.
And if it's not worth intervening in, but the U.S. does anyway, they can still take advantage of it (i.e. oil and mining contracts in Iraq/Afghanistan).
Quote from: Monoriu on March 09, 2011, 10:42:44 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 06:49:34 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 09, 2011, 06:12:08 PM
Why don't the other Arab powers or the African Union deal with this? Why does everything around the world have to be America and Europe's problem? Can't China, the premier colonizer of Africa today, get in on this, instead?
It would be hilarious if the Chinese stepped in and intervened. I can't imagine how we'd react to something like that.
China's number one, and probably only concern about Libya, is to get its 30,000 citizens out. Since that has already been accomplished, Libya is now in the "who cares" category from the Chinese perspective. Sure, they lost some lucrative construction contracts, but the Chinese companies can afford such loses these days. China can buy oil from someone else. I don't even think Libya sells a lot of oil to China in the first place.
I've never gotten the impression that China would care about its citizens one way or the other.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2011, 07:34:46 PM
It's very concievable that the conscript portion disbanded themselves in the Iraqi fashion.
The Iraqi Army was never a unified force. Much of it isn't "the Iraqi Army' any more, but rather the militias of the various rebel factions. Some of the units may have disbanded, as you note, but since the army was organized along tribal lines (and was all conscript except for the cadres), the units would do so only if the tribal leaders ordered it.
The security forces have always been better-armed and better-trained for conventional operations than the army, a la Saddam's Republican Guard.
Maybe France will take the lead on this?
http://www.france24.com/en/20110310-France-NTC-national-transitional-council-embassy-Libya
QuoteFrance is the first country to formally recognise the legitimacy of Libya's rebel National Transitional Council and will open an embassy in Benghazi, the government announced after meeting with NTC representatives in Paris Thursday.
With Sarko, all things are possible.
I look forward to the imminent French surrender to Gadhafi. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 10, 2011, 11:52:44 AM
I look forward to the imminent French surrender to Gadhafi. :)
QuoteThe First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."
Sarkozy is a Hungarian Jew :Joos :Tamas
US to send humanitarian aid to the rebels.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42014852/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Quote from: garbon on March 08, 2011, 08:56:55 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 08, 2011, 07:35:07 PM
The moment we get involved, even with a no fly zone, we take on some responsibility for events as they unfold, and thus risk getting drawn into things further. Fuck that.
Meh, I live in America and we are burdened with responsibility whether we act or don't act. Hardly a compelling reason to do nothing.
Not so simple as trying to placate the 'blame America' crowd. Once we get involved, the chances of getting further drawn in increase exponentially - likewise do the PR costs of then backing away after initial involvement.
With China- I've been thinking could a way to get them to agree to the no fly zone be to make it not specifically a NATO thing? Invite the Chinese and others to send over some forces to help out?
The Arab League not doing anything- The Arab league is the governments of the Arab nations. Just the sort of people being thrown out during the unrest in the middle east...If anything they would support Gaddafi I'd think.
However, Egypt really should be doing something. Spreading the revolution so to speak. But to do it alone...it would be too much of a war. I'd think they would be fully willing should the west want to get involved also though.
QuoteMaybe France will take the lead on this?
http://www.france24.com/en/20110310-France-NTC-national-transitional-council-embassy-Libya
With Sarko, all things are possible.
Would this see the Anglo-French carrier sharing at work? :hmm:
Would be cool for it to be a mainly EU affair. But getting people willing to join isn't the problem really, its getting the UN (China, Russia) to give the go-ahead.
Quote from: Tyr on March 10, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Would this see the Anglo-French carrier sharing at work? :hmm:
I predict disaster. The French will surrender after the first plane is shot down, and the British will respond by launching an attack on the French side of the ship to prevent it from being turned over to the Lybians, causing the carrier to sink.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2011, 06:29:14 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 10, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Would this see the Anglo-French carrier sharing at work? :hmm:
the British will respond by launching an attack on the French side of the ship to prevent it from being turned over to the Lybians, causing the carrier to sink.
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2011, 06:29:14 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 10, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Would this see the Anglo-French carrier sharing at work? :hmm:
I predict disaster. The French will surrender after the first plane is shot down, and the British will respond by launching an attack on the French side of the ship to prevent it from being turned over to the Lybians, causing the carrier to sink.
:lmfao:
Why do you think the French would wait till a plane gets shot down?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 10, 2011, 06:01:04 PM
Not so simple as trying to placate the 'blame America' crowd. Once we get involved, the chances of getting further drawn in increase exponentially - likewise do the PR costs of then backing away after initial involvement.
I see it from a different viewpoint. We're already involved (especially when we have principal statesmen telling a dictator to step down); it's just a matter of how involved we should get.
Quote from: Tyr on March 10, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
With China- I've been thinking could a way to get them to agree to the no fly zone be to make it not specifically a NATO thing? Invite the Chinese and others to send over some forces to help out?
No fly zone - maybe. Sending over some PLA soldiers? Absolutely no way.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 10, 2011, 06:37:11 AM
I've never gotten the impression that China would care about its citizens one way or the other.
In recent years, the communists try really hard on any and all disaster relief type actions. Whenever there is some earthquake, mining diasaster, major traffic incident, even if they happen outside China, the Chinese government will do the utmost to help its citizens. This is a great way of boosting legitimacy and it doesn't hurt the ruling class.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2011, 07:14:28 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 07:11:16 PM
Yes he does. Chavez will send: El Condor Legion. :)
I forgot all about him. Wouldn't that be fascinating if he sent some boys over?
What would be fascinating is how he got them there.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 10, 2011, 08:57:26 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 10, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
With China- I've been thinking could a way to get them to agree to the no fly zone be to make it not specifically a NATO thing? Invite the Chinese and others to send over some forces to help out?
No fly zone - maybe. Sending over some PLA soldiers? Absolutely no way.
It would be against China's long standing foreign policy of national soveriegnty above all else anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2011, 11:57:11 AM
What would be fascinating is how he got them there.
:hmm: AirFrance?
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2011, 11:57:11 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2011, 07:14:28 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 07:11:16 PM
Yes he does. Chavez will send: El Condor Legion. :)
I forgot all about him. Wouldn't that be fascinating if he sent some boys over?
What would be fascinating is how he got them there.
LOL, that is a really good point.
As an American, I pretty much just take it for granted that we can get troops almost anywhere we want as a matter of course...
France should go at it alone, with both air stikes and ground troops, a chance to regain some of their past glory and ofcourse improve the ratings of President Sarkozy... :contract:
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 11, 2011, 12:26:20 PM
France should go at it alone, with both air stikes and ground troops, a chance to regain some of their past glory and ofcourse improve the ratings of President Sarkozy... :contract:
They would only do so if it was a former colony of theirs.
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2011, 12:18:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2011, 11:57:11 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2011, 07:14:28 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 07:11:16 PM
Yes he does. Chavez will send: El Condor Legion. :)
I forgot all about him. Wouldn't that be fascinating if he sent some boys over?
What would be fascinating is how he got them there.
LOL, that is a really good point.
As an American, I pretty much just take it for granted that we can get troops almost anywhere we want as a matter of course...
Maybe Chavez could get a loan of some ships from his friends in Congress and Hollywood? ;)
Or perhaps Halliburton can help out. They do business in Libya and they have experience in military matters.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2011, 12:58:18 PM
Or perhaps Halliburton can help out. They do business in Libya and they have experience in military matters.
Yeah, then Dick Cheney can ride to the rescue!! Invite Ghaddafi to a hunting trip. :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2011, 11:57:11 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2011, 07:14:28 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 07:11:16 PM
Yes he does. Chavez will send: El Condor Legion. :)
I forgot all about him. Wouldn't that be fascinating if he sent some boys over?
What would be fascinating is how he got them there.
I'm sure there's a shipping company he's nationalized that hasn't been run into the ground quite yet.
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2011, 12:27:56 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 11, 2011, 12:26:20 PM
France should go at it alone, with both air stikes and ground troops, a chance to regain some of their past glory and ofcourse improve the ratings of President Sarkozy... :contract:
They would only do so if it was a former colony of theirs.
Pretty much.
So when are the Marines and shit going in? If only Khadafi had tried to kill Obama's dad.
You guys need to hurry and send your boys to get torn up already. American blood looks so awesome when splattered all over sand.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 11, 2011, 05:30:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2011, 12:27:56 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 11, 2011, 12:26:20 PM
France should go at it alone, with both air stikes and ground troops, a chance to regain some of their past glory and ofcourse improve the ratings of President Sarkozy... :contract:
They would only do so if it was a former colony of theirs.
Pretty much.
So when are the Marines and shit going in? If only Khadafi had tried to kill Obama's dad.
You guys need to hurry and send your boys to get torn up already. American blood looks so awesome when splattered all over sand.
1/10.
Try harder.
You think I'm trolling? I'm the dude who supports hezbollah and hamas and shit, remember, because I like Beyrouth. :wacko:
Hey, a fucked up Humvee from IED means another order coming in! Aren't you guys in a recession?
Business could be booming. Arh arh.
Will Zoupa: follow Sask?
I dont ragequit, I just stop clicking on the ''serious'' threads for a while each time I'm reminded how barf-worthy or unfunny lots of people are on languish.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 11, 2011, 05:37:18 PM
You think I'm trolling? I'm the dude who supports hezbollah and hamas and shit, remember, because I like Beyrouth. :wacko:
Hey, a fucked up Humvee from IED means another order coming in! Aren't you guys in a recession?
Business could be booming. Arh arh.
I'm sure Timmay will get all outraged and stuff and bite on your troll sausage.
Word to your mother.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 11, 2011, 05:41:26 PM
I dont ragequit, I just stop clicking on the ''serious'' threads for a while each time I'm reminded how barf-worthy or unfunny lots of people are on languish.
Hey now sometimes I am not entirely barf-worthy and unfunny.
CNN reports major rebel retreat underway.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 11, 2011, 05:30:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2011, 12:27:56 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 11, 2011, 12:26:20 PM
France should go at it alone, with both air stikes and ground troops, a chance to regain some of their past glory and ofcourse improve the ratings of President Sarkozy... :contract:
They would only do so if it was a former colony of theirs.
Pretty much.
So when are the Marines and shit going in? If only Khadafi had tried to kill Obama's dad.
You guys need to hurry and send your boys to get torn up already. American blood looks so awesome when splattered all over sand.
In that case the Kikuyu really should be shitting bricks since a Luo wields the US Marine Corps and the World's largest Nuclear Arsenal.
Gadaffi will win unless he's overthrown by the West.
Everything is proceeding as it should.
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2011, 12:18:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2011, 11:57:11 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2011, 07:14:28 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 07:11:16 PM
Yes he does. Chavez will send: El Condor Legion. :)
I forgot all about him. Wouldn't that be fascinating if he sent some boys over?
What would be fascinating is how he got them there.
LOL, that is a really good point.
As an American, I pretty much just take it for granted that we can get troops almost anywhere we want as a matter of course...
He can, too. Lufthansa has direct flights to Barcelona, switch planes, and a direct to Tripoli via Marseilles. Easy.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 11, 2011, 08:50:45 PM
Gadaffi will win unless he's overthrown by the West.
Be a winner like Saddam.
Quote from: Viking on March 11, 2011, 10:12:01 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on March 11, 2011, 08:50:45 PM
Gadaffi will win unless he's overthrown by the West.
Be a winner like Saddam.
Arabs don't do democracy.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 11, 2011, 05:30:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2011, 12:27:56 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 11, 2011, 12:26:20 PM
France should go at it alone, with both air stikes and ground troops, a chance to regain some of their past glory and ofcourse improve the ratings of President Sarkozy... :contract:
They would only do so if it was a former colony of theirs.
Pretty much.
So when are the Marines and shit going in? If only Khadafi had tried to kill Obama's dad.
You guys need to hurry and send your boys to get torn up already. American blood looks so awesome when splattered all over sand.
8/10
People hate to hear the truth about Iraq.
Reports that Gadhafi has recaptured Mersa Brega. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on March 12, 2011, 09:13:01 AM
Reports that Gadhafi has recaptured Mersa Brega. :cool:
Your support of Qadhafi is despicable! :mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2011, 09:14:57 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 12, 2011, 09:13:01 AM
Reports that Gadhafi has recaptured Mersa Brega. :cool:
Your support of Qadhafi is despicable! :mad:
No it isn't. Supporting a known quantity instead of a mysterious group of armed fanatics is a perfectly rational position to take.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2011, 09:14:57 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 12, 2011, 09:13:01 AM
Reports that Gadhafi has recaptured Mersa Brega. :cool:
Your support of Qadhafi is despicable! :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Fgadfly.jpg&hash=de40ecf19f1891df71306131caab229a1f9fe0f4)
I knew it, the Juice is behind it all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzDWXWfuxYY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzDWXWfuxYY)
http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2011/03/saif-gadhafi-visits-israel-and-asks-for.html (http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2011/03/saif-gadhafi-visits-israel-and-asks-for.html)
As always the evol juice working hard to prevent the peaceful muslims from enjoying their oli money...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 12, 2011, 12:14:54 PM
I knew it, the Juice is behind it all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzDWXWfuxYY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzDWXWfuxYY)
http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2011/03/saif-gadhafi-visits-israel-and-asks-for.html (http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2011/03/saif-gadhafi-visits-israel-and-asks-for.html)
As always the evol juice working hard to prevent the peaceful muslims from enjoying their oli money...
I would have thought the Mossad sharks and vulture spies would have been enough.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 12, 2011, 11:10:49 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2011, 09:14:57 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 12, 2011, 09:13:01 AM
Reports that Gadhafi has recaptured Mersa Brega. :cool:
Your support of Qadhafi is despicable! :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Fgadfly.jpg&hash=de40ecf19f1891df71306131caab229a1f9fe0f4)
:yes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg862.imageshack.us%2Fimg862%2F1579%2Flonerebel.jpg&hash=5939bc0f8d3e89739098f6ee18f69cb6aa9c525c)
QuoteA lone rebels mans the last checkpoint.
That's it, if the rebels turns out to be a bunch of hipsters, I am all for good old Gaddafi...
Look at that fucking hipster. Fucker likely has some Trader Joe's beer.
Fuck them.
That is one of the weirdest pictures I have ever seen.
Just remembered this is still happening. Been no mention of it what with Japan :lol:
Guess we're not racists afterall, we just don't like poor people.
Western media stopped talking about it because, really, it has become obvious that the rebels will not win. Foreign help is dragging and will not come to tilt the balance in favour of the rebels.
Their prediction that Gaddafi would fall within short notice like Ben Ali and Mubarak didn't realize itself, at all, so they shrug the conflict under the Japan earthquake rug until something new comes.
Libya has been off the news for two days because Godzilla and Mothra are currently stomping the shit out of Japan in dramatic fashion. It will be back soon, if for no other reason than the impact it has on oil supply.
Quote from: Drakken on March 12, 2011, 03:53:35 PM
Western media stopped talking about it because, really, it has become obvious that the rebels will not win. Foreign help is dragging and will not come to tilt the balance in favour of the rebels.
Their prediction that Gaddafi would fall didn't realize itself, so they shrug the conflict under the Japan earthquake rug until something new comes.
Yeah, the though of a bunch light armed and loosely organized rebels* beating and defeating Gaddafi's regime, seems to have been wet dream for many journalists, how disappointed they must be right now...
* read: young and progressive.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 12, 2011, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: Drakken on March 12, 2011, 03:53:35 PM
Western media stopped talking about it because, really, it has become obvious that the rebels will not win. Foreign help is dragging and will not come to tilt the balance in favour of the rebels.
Their prediction that Gaddafi would fall didn't realize itself, so they shrug the conflict under the Japan earthquake rug until something new comes.
Yeah, the though of a bunch light armed and loosely organized rebels* beating and defeating Gaddafi's regime, seems to have been wet dream for many journalists, how disappointed they must be right now...
* read: young and progressive.
The CNN dude in the east seems to constantly whine about the lack of American aircover. Derka derka.
If they had a clue they would have put together some sort of governing council we could talk to about what kind of country Libya would be post Kadaffi. And they would tell their young guns to take the pictures of bin Laden off their AKs.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/2011313101739903833.html (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/2011313101739903833.html)
QuoteLibyan rebels 'cleared of Brega'
State TV says forces loyal to Gaddafi "purged" rebels out of Brega, a major oil town as heavy shelling pounds the city.
Last Modified: 13 Mar 2011 10:33 GMT
The Libyan armed forces, loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, have cleared "armed gangs" from the oil town of Brega in the east, an army source said on Sunday on state TV.
"Brega has been cleansed of armed gangs," the military source was quoted on Libyan state TV as saying.
The report could not immediately be verified. Libyan TV has in the past issued faulty reports claiming territory.
Gaddafi forces have been swiftly advancing on the poorly equipped and loosely organised rebels who had seized much of the eastern parts of the country.
On Saturday, Gaddafi's forces pushed the front line miles deeper into rebel territory to just 25 miles (40 kilometres) outside Brega, the site of a major oil terminal.
The question now is, does Daffy goes directly for Benghazi or has he "read the book" and goes across Cyrenaica aiming for Tobruk?...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2011, 09:14:57 AM
Your support of Qadhafi is despicable! :mad:
Didn't you mean to say.... MONSTROUS? :cool:
Arab League votes to back no-fly zone (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/12/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2). Apparently some still think jumping on the rebel bandwagon is a good idea.
QuoteCairo, Egypt (CNN) -- The Arab League voted Saturday to back a no-fly zone in Libya and is asking that the U.N. Security Council impose the measure, officials of the regional body told reporters.
"It has one goal: To protect the civilian population," Amre Moussa, the body's secretary-general said.
"We will inform the U.N. Security Council of our request to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya," Moussa said. "The U.N. Security Council should decide how it will be enforced."
Youssef bin Alawi bin Abdullah, Oman's foreign minister who joined Moussa to answer questions, said the no-fly zone would be a preventive measure and would have to be stopped immediately when the Libyan crisis ends.
No-fly zone carries challenges He said Arab League members have reservations about military intervention, but said all countries agreed that a no-fly zone must be imposed urgently to protect civilians.
"We hope the Libyan authorities will respect a no-fly decision," he said. "Be assured the Arab countries will not accept the intervention of the NATO coalition."
Moussa said the league also voted to open channels of communication with the Transitional National Council, the Libyan opposition's newly formed administration, and that any talks with that body would be on a humanitarian basis.
"We are giving them legitimacy but we're not giving them political recognition," Moussa said. "We are prepared to help evacuate any Arab nationals from Libya regardless of their nationality."
The Arab League also called for immediate humanitarian assistance and an end to the bloodshed in Libya, where civil war has broken out between forces loyal to leader Moammar Gadhafi and a tenacious opposition movement.
The White House cheered the League's announcements and stressed it will continue to pressure Gadhafi, support the opposition and prepare for "all contingencies."
"We welcome this important step by the Arab League, which strengthens the international pressure on Gadhafi and support for the Libyan people," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement about the Arab League's no-fly vote.
Opposition forces made strides in the early days of the rebellion, but Gadhafi's military has recently gained strong momentum.
The military has been pounding the key oil port of Ras Lanuf, once in the hands of rebel forces, and has taken control of towns such as nearby Bin Jawad. The Gadhafi government appears intent on retaking all territory from the opposition despite growing international pressure.
The League was meeting at its headquarters in Cairo, while hundreds of demonstrators outside urged the international community to step up support for Libyan opposition groups.
Pleading for international help as they continue to lose ground to pro-Gadhafi forces, rebels are asking for a no-fly zone that would theoretically thwart airstrikes.
No-fly zones are areas where aircraft are not allowed to fly. Such zones were put in place after the Gulf War in southern and northern Iraq as a check on the forces of the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Western powers have said any action by the international community, including a no-fly zone, would have to have regional support and a clear mandate from the United Nations.
U.S. President Barack Obama said Friday that he "won't take (the) decision lightly" on whether to use military force, including helping to enforce a no-fly zone, saying it is critical to "balance costs versus benefits."
While France has recognized the National Transitional Council as the sole representative of the Libyan people, the European Union was more restrained Friday, saying it "welcomes and encourages the interim transitional national council based in Benghazi, which it considers a political interlocutor."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was even more cautious in her approach to the council, calling it a possible interlocutor.
Britain's Foreign Office issued a statement after Saturday's vote, saying, "We welcome the Arab League's decision to make contact with the Interim National Council," which the government sees as "valid interlocutors."
The statement also said that no-fly zones are "one option being considered as part of international contingency planning to respond quickly to events on the ground as they develop. This planning does not pre-judge any particular outcome."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a news conference in Brussels, Belgium, Friday that "we consider the National Council based in Benghazi as the proper interlocutors for Libya and they need to be recognized as such and encouraged."
In another diplomatic development, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Libya, Rashid Khalikov, arrived in Tripoli on Saturday to discuss access for humanitarian aid.
"The international aid community has expressed concerns over the very limited access to various areas in Libya, including those places where heavy fighting is taking place," Khalikov said.
About 260,000 people, mostly third-country nationals, have left Libya for neighboring countries, primarily Tunisia and Egypt. In response to the crisis, the United Nations and its partners launched a "flash appeal" seeking $160 million "to assist both those leaving the country and those expected to need humanitarian assistance inside Libya," the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said.
Meanwhile, the Libyan government on Saturday took journalists to the eastern city of Bin Jawad, where the government ousted rebels about a week ago.
CNN's Nic Robertson said he saw fighter jets in the sky but he didn't see them engage in strikes.
He saw some structural damage, such as a blown-out police station and damage to a school and houses, including a Katyusha rocket embedded in the wall of a house. Some stores were closed and others had been looted.
Quote
"We hope the Libyan authorities will respect a no-fly decision," he said. "Be assured the Arab countries will not accept the intervention of the NATO coalition."
LOL
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 12, 2011, 04:03:05 PM
Yeah, the though of a bunch light armed and loosely organized rebels* beating and defeating Gaddafi's regime, seems to have been wet dream for many journalists, how disappointed they must be right now...
* read: young and progressive.
:huh: You've been drinking the wrong kool-aid, son. The wet dream of journalists is to see Wacky Gaddafi stay in power and give journos more antics to write about. Journalists already have the "light[sic] armed and loosely organized rebels" overthrowing the regime story right next door.
Now, admittedly, they would like to see France send in troops to prop up the rebel regime it has created, so they seem doomed to disappointment there. I share that disappointment; I think Libya is one of the few countries France has not surrendered to as yet.
Once Gadhafi takes Aghedabia I will switch back to supporting the rebels. Then if the rebels manage to advance back toward Sirte, I'll switch back the Gadhafi's side.
Quote from: Caliga on March 13, 2011, 10:25:23 AM
Once Gadhafi takes Aghedabia I will switch back to supporting the rebels. Then if the rebels manage to advance back toward Sirte, I'll switch back the Gadhafi's side.
How Italian.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 13, 2011, 10:26:08 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 13, 2011, 10:25:23 AM
Once Gadhafi takes Aghedabia I will switch back to supporting the rebels. Then if the rebels manage to advance back toward Sirte, I'll switch back the Gadhafi's side.
How Italian.
Aren't Italians normally the opposite? Switch sides, yes, but only to the winning side.
Cal is more like Senator Truman. :cool:
My strategy: kill as many America-hating Arabs as possible. USA! USA! USA!
Quote from: grumbler on March 13, 2011, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 12, 2011, 04:03:05 PM
Yeah, the though of a bunch light armed and loosely organized rebels* beating and defeating Gaddafi's regime, seems to have been wet dream for many journalists, how disappointed they must be right now...
* read: young and progressive.
:huh: You've been drinking the wrong kool-aid, son. The wet dream of journalists is to see Wacky Gaddafi stay in power and give journos more antics to write about. Journalists already have the "light[sic] armed and loosely organized rebels" overthrowing the regime story right next door.
Now, admittedly, they would like to see France send in troops to prop up the rebel regime it has created, so they seem doomed to disappointment there. I share that disappointment; I think Libya is one of the few countries France has not surrendered to as yet.
0/10
Oyoyoy. That was terrible. Just terrible. At least show some effort.
STOP STEALING MY SHTICK.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 12, 2011, 02:02:45 PM
Look at that fucking hipster. Fucker likely has some Trader Joe's beer.
Fuck them.
Those are boot cut jeans. Not hipster.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2011, 03:06:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 12, 2011, 02:02:45 PM
Look at that fucking hipster. Fucker likely has some Trader Joe's beer.
Fuck them.
Those are boot cut jeans. Not hipster.
Only a fucking hipster would know that. Are you a fucking hipster?
I thought he was wearing gaucho skirt/shorts and stockings. Either way dressing up as the collaborator chick from The Last Empire during a civil war does not send the right message.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 13, 2011, 04:19:59 PM
Only a fucking hipster would know that. Are you a fucking hipster?
One of my hipster friends has informed me that they aren't boot cut. So, no, I guess I am not.
Quote from: Kleves on March 13, 2011, 09:20:53 AM
Arab League votes to back no-fly zone (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/12/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2). Apparently some still think jumping on the rebel bandwagon is a good idea.
Those bolded bits make the whole thing nonsensical. What's the point?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2011, 07:56:03 PM
Quote from: Kleves on March 13, 2011, 09:20:53 AM
Arab League votes to back no-fly zone (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/12/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2). Apparently some still think jumping on the rebel bandwagon is a good idea.
Those bolded bits make the whole thing nonsensical. What's the point?
They can look like they care while making it clear that they don't?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2011, 07:56:03 PM
Quote from: Kleves on March 13, 2011, 09:20:53 AM
Arab League votes to back no-fly zone (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/12/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2). Apparently some still think jumping on the rebel bandwagon is a good idea.
Those bolded bits make the whole thing nonsensical. What's the point?
As I read it, they want any involvement(the no-fly zone) to be a UN effort, not a full-scale NATO intervention.
As I don't recall the UN ever using "no-fly zones" in the past (iirc, they've all been NATO or US/UK/etc unilateral action...even if we used UN resolutions as a handy excuse), and as UN military-related efforts have pretty much been a failure since the Korean War...
I think it's too late for no-fly zones anyway.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 13, 2011, 08:39:49 PM
as UN military-related efforts have pretty much been a failure since the Korean War...
Gulf War?
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2011, 09:41:48 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 13, 2011, 08:39:49 PM
as UN military-related efforts have pretty much been a failure since the Korean War...
Gulf War?
Well, the Gulf War and Korea are actually quite alike. Under the UN name, but primarily a US show with the nominal inclusion of our favorite allies, and the notable exclusion/disinterest of most every other UN member that either doesn't really give a damn, or doesn't like us.
I suppose I was thinking of the UN military actions that involve a more widespread involvement from membership...like Lebanon, Rwanda, Congo, and Somalia.
And even without the UN, we'd probably have gone after Iraq for Gulf War I anyway. Papa Bush had the pull to make it look good.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2011, 06:48:49 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 13, 2011, 04:19:59 PM
Only a fucking hipster would know that. Are you a fucking hipster?
One of my hipster friends has informed me that they aren't boot cut. So, no, I guess I am not.
I don't believe you. I think you are a fucking hipster.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 12, 2011, 04:03:05 PM
Yeah, the though of a bunch light armed and loosely organized rebels* beating and defeating Gaddafi's regime, seems to have been wet dream for many journalists, how disappointed they must be right now...
* read: young and progressive.
I thought the rebels were tribal enemies of Ghadafi...hardly progressive...
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:11:34 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 12, 2011, 04:03:05 PM
Yeah, the though of a bunch light armed and loosely organized rebels* beating and defeating Gaddafi's regime, seems to have been wet dream for many journalists, how disappointed they must be right now...
* read: young and progressive.
I thought the rebels were tribal enemies of Ghadafi...hardly progressive...
Hard not to be more progressive than Qadafi.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 14, 2011, 09:17:24 AM
Hard not to be more progressive than Qadafi.
If 'progressive' means not evil then maybe. If 'progressive' means more in touch with the modern world probably not.
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 08:11:34 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 12, 2011, 04:03:05 PM
Yeah, the though of a bunch light armed and loosely organized rebels* beating and defeating Gaddafi's regime, seems to have been wet dream for many journalists, how disappointed they must be right now...
* read: young and progressive.
I thought the rebels were tribal enemies of Ghadafi...hardly progressive...
The "young and progressive" part is how some media tried portrait the rebels and may have been so doing the first public protests in Tripoli, but now it looks like it's the usual tribal knuckleheads fighting...
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 09:29:44 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 14, 2011, 09:17:24 AM
Hard not to be more progressive than Qadafi.
If 'progressive' means not evil then maybe. If 'progressive' means more in touch with the modern world probably not.
Probably so, because even the most backwards, traditionalist tribalist is still in connection with some aspect of the world, even if is from decades or centuries ago. Whereas Qadaffi is operating on another planet altogether.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2011, 12:26:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 09:29:44 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 14, 2011, 09:17:24 AM
Hard not to be more progressive than Qadafi.
If 'progressive' means not evil then maybe. If 'progressive' means more in touch with the modern world probably not.
Probably so, because even the most backwards, traditionalist tribalist is still in connection with some aspect of the world, even if is from decades or centuries ago. Whereas Qadaffi is operating on another planet altogether.
A planet that's winning, duh.
Quote from: citizen k on March 14, 2011, 12:36:31 PM
A planet that's winning, duh.
it's not at all clear he has any serious prospects of ever taking back the east of the country . . .
Quote from: citizen k on March 14, 2011, 12:36:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2011, 12:26:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2011, 09:29:44 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 14, 2011, 09:17:24 AM
Hard not to be more progressive than Qadafi.
If 'progressive' means not evil then maybe. If 'progressive' means more in touch with the modern world probably not.
Probably so, because even the most backwards, traditionalist tribalist is still in connection with some aspect of the world, even if is from decades or centuries ago. Whereas Qadaffi is operating on another planet altogether.
A planet that's winning, duh.
Charlie Sheen jokes got old a while back.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2011, 12:59:42 PM
Quote from: citizen k on March 14, 2011, 12:36:31 PM
A planet that's winning, duh.
it's not at all clear he has any serious prospects of ever taking back the east of the country . . .
Yeah, I would think that if he had that capability he'd have done it by now. Though I have to say I'm not exactly sure which side attrition would favor.
I haven't seen a lot of hard information on the forces deployed. It appears Qadaffi is relying heavily on a single, well-equipped brigade of about 4000 men. Behind that are another 6000 or so in so-called "elite" formations that are not as well equipped or reliable as the Khamis brigade, and a bunch of other loyal paramilitary formations of various kinds. The regular army is assumed by most commentators to be both unreliable and of questionable effectiveness, which is borne out by its past performance.
Attrition may be problematic for the regime, because as the equipment of their the key units degrades, the ability to replace it may be compromised by sanctions. That would reduce their qualitative edge over the rebel groups.
OTOH, the impact of attrition on the rebels is unknown, as is just about everything else concerning their capabilities and potential other than their equipment (limited) and experience (presumed negligible).
Time seems likely to improve both. Particularly if they can hold onto the oil terminals/oilfields.
Shit. Feared Gadaffi would push back - such a big army doesn't just vanish over night- but never expected it all to go this fast...
Just heard on CNN that GCC troops have shown up in Bahrein.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2011, 05:30:04 PM
Just heard on CNN that GCC troops have shown up in Bahrein.
Who is GCC?
Don't fuck with the Qatar tank battalion.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 10, 2011, 06:37:11 AMI've never gotten the impression that China would care about its citizens one way or the other.
That's changing. Whenever there's a disaster abroad, the Chinese internet starts buzzing comparing the response there to similar responses in China to disasters at home. Taking care of citizens abroad and not fucking up disaster relief is a big source of legitimacy for the regime, and conversely a risk if they fumble it.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 11, 2011, 05:41:26 PM
I dont ragequit, I just stop clicking on the ''serious'' threads for a while each time I'm reminded how barf-worthy or unfunny lots of people are on languish.
Yeah, that's the best strategy; that or simply scroll past posts by certain posters on certain (or all) topics.
:ph34r:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2011, 05:04:18 PM
I thought he was wearing gaucho skirt/shorts and stockings. Either way dressing up as the collaborator chick from The Last Empire during a civil war does not send the right message.
The guy is just cold, so he's wearing two overcoats. Because he's manning a checkpoint in the middle of fucking nowhere.
No hipster has that much authenticity in their clothing decisions.
Defending hipsters make you a hipster. Don't be a hipster.
Quote from: Jacob on March 14, 2011, 06:28:43 PM
The guy is just cold, so he's wearing two overcoats. Because he's manning a checkpoint in the middle of fucking nowhere.
No hipster has that much authenticity in their clothing decisions.
:yeahright: And the Red Baron helmet, the hussar boots, and the luffa purse?
From Al Jazeera's Libya Live Blog - March 15
Quote4:30pm
Anti-government activists said that rebels commanding fighter jets have destroyed two of Gaddafi's warships off the northeast coast of Ajdabiya.
The opposition also claimed to have hit a third naval ship in the air attack, according to opposition website Libya al-Youm.
A number of army generals and soldiers, particularly in the Libyan Air Force, have defected to join the rebels and have an arsenal of weapons and fighter jets at their disposal.
The alleged attack comes as Gaddafi's forces continue to battle for control of Ajdabiya and the nearby city of Brega in order to advance on to the opposition stronghold of Benghazi.
No need for a NFZ as the rebels seems have their own air force...
Quoteas the rebels seems have their own air force...
They've done a rather shitty job of contesting the airspace and letting Mummar's flyboys operate uncontested.
If these rebel planes exist.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 15, 2011, 11:14:47 AM
Anti-government activists said that rebels commanding Egyptian fighter jets have destroyed two of Gaddafi's warships off the northeast coast of Ajdabiya.
Fixed. :)
I dont know how trustworthy this news site is, but anyway it seems that the "rebel" pilots are a lot more effective than the pro- Gaddafi ones...
Baab Al Aziziyah (http://baabalaziziyah)
Quote20:03 BREAKING – Almanara Media confirms the following:
1. Al Gurdabiyya airbase near Sirt has been subject to air strikes by the defected Free Libyan Airforce
2. Shooting and explosions have happened in Baab Al Aziziyah.
3. A big fire has erupted inside Baab Al Aziziyah
4. The defected Free Libyan airforce has bombarded three Gaddafi military convoys headed to the east
5. Demonstrations have broken out in Girgarish, Tripoli
One the other hand... <_<
Quote20:32 BREAKING BREAKING from Almanara Media The huge fire that has erupted inside Baab Al Aziziyah was due to a martyr mission using a fighter jet to crash into the compound
Baab Al Aziziyah is the main pro- Gaddafi military base in Tripoli...
So did Egypt take some F-16s & smear shit on them to look like MiG-21s, or what?
:hmm:
reminds me of the .ru news reporting during the 2nd gulf war. THE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BACK
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2011, 04:20:09 PM
reminds me of the .ru news reporting during the 2nd gulf war. THE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BACK
And the classic,"Baghdad will be a Stalingrad for American forces."
Quote from: citizen k on March 15, 2011, 04:43:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2011, 04:20:09 PM
reminds me of the .ru news reporting during the 2nd gulf war. THE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BACK
And the classic,"Baghdad will be a Stalingrad for American forces."
And the classic 'the Fedayeen Saddam drove the 3rd division back in middle of a dust storm!'.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2011, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: citizen k on March 15, 2011, 04:43:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2011, 04:20:09 PM
reminds me of the .ru news reporting during the 2nd gulf war. THE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BACK
And the classic,"Baghdad will be a Stalingrad for American forces."
And the classic 'the Fedayeen Saddam drove the 3rd division back in middle of a dust storm!'.
Were they riding Shai-Hulud? :huh:
Read in the FT that Kaddafi may be running out of FX. Black market rate has jumped 30% and people are lining up for bread.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2011, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: citizen k on March 15, 2011, 04:43:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2011, 04:20:09 PM
reminds me of the .ru news reporting during the 2nd gulf war. THE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BACK
And the classic,"Baghdad will be a Stalingrad for American forces."
And the classic 'the Fedayeen Saddam drove the 3rd division back in middle of a dust storm!'.
Man, I had forgotten about all that shit. Wonder if there's a repository of some sort for all the mis-reporting that took place. My mother in law called up at one point to tell me how concerned she was that the US was losing :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2011, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2011, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: citizen k on March 15, 2011, 04:43:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2011, 04:20:09 PM
reminds me of the .ru news reporting during the 2nd gulf war. THE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BACK
And the classic,"Baghdad will be a Stalingrad for American forces."
And the classic 'the Fedayeen Saddam drove the 3rd division back in middle of a dust storm!'.
Man, I had forgotten about all that shit. Wonder if there's a repository of some sort for all the mis-reporting that took place. My mother in law called up at one point to tell me how concerned she was that the US was losing :lol:
Argies secretly crave our fall.
Agedabia falls to Gadhafi's forces. :cool:
edit: This is a pretty cool map btw: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/feb/27/libya-tripoli-unrest-gaddafi-map (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/feb/27/libya-tripoli-unrest-gaddafi-map)
Quote from: Caliga on March 15, 2011, 06:46:05 PM
Agedabia falls to Gadhafi's forces. :cool:
edit: This is a pretty cool map btw: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/feb/27/libya-tripoli-unrest-gaddafi-map (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/feb/27/libya-tripoli-unrest-gaddafi-map)
The defenses didn't even last a day. Next week in Tobruk!
I hope the rebel scum didn't fuck up Leptis Magna.
Soon it will be time for me to switch sides, but I kinda don't want to. Gadhafi's craziness is starting to grow on me. :hmm:
I wish I could buy myself a country...
I'm kinda hoping for a badass battle in Tobruk complete with old Aussies giving it one last go in their dusty old Ford Dingoes. :showoff:
Quote from: Caliga on March 15, 2011, 07:06:58 PM
I'm kinda hoping for a badass battle in Tobruk complete with old Aussies giving it one last go in their dusty old Ford Dingoes. :showoff:
The brits will of course sacrifice their colonial troops while theirs cower away from the enemy.
The coolest ending to this uprising/civil war EVAR would be if Patton came barrelling into Libya from the Tunisian border.
LIKE SHIT THROUGH A GOOSE.
Quote from: Caliga on March 15, 2011, 07:16:22 PM
The coolest ending to this uprising/civil war EVAR would be if Patton came barrelling into Libya from the Tunisian border.
LIKE SHIT THROUGH A GOOSE.
And strangled Monty with his jockstrap.
Quote from: Caliga on March 15, 2011, 06:46:05 PM
Agedabia falls to Gadhafi's forces. :cool:
edit: This is a pretty cool map btw: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/feb/27/libya-tripoli-unrest-gaddafi-map (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/feb/27/libya-tripoli-unrest-gaddafi-map)
Rebels need more Toyotas. I wish Obama had kept his goddamn mouth shut. Now when the Colonel wins he'll be pissed as us again. I mean, we just fixed relations with Libya.
If the Saudis can intervene in bahrain I think it is only fair that the forces of liberation in Tunisia and Egypt intervene in Libya.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 15, 2011, 07:35:45 PM
If the Saudis can intervene in bahrain I think it is only fair that the forces of liberation in Tunisia and Egypt intervene in Libya.
An Egyptian division could end this in two weeks.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2011, 07:43:11 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 15, 2011, 07:35:45 PM
If the Saudis can intervene in bahrain I think it is only fair that the forces of liberation in Tunisia and Egypt intervene in Libya.
An Egyptian division could end this in two weeks.
The only way it could be better is if the Israelis intervene.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 15, 2011, 07:48:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2011, 07:43:11 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 15, 2011, 07:35:45 PM
If the Saudis can intervene in bahrain I think it is only fair that the forces of liberation in Tunisia and Egypt intervene in Libya.
An Egyptian division could end this in two weeks.
The only way it could be better is if the Israelis intervene.
An Israeli battalion then. That would be jewawesome.
Are you kidding? Like me, the Israelis are hoping this thing lasts as long as possible.
I wonder if we've gotten to the point that no matter who wins the tribes that backed the losers will be butchered.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2011, 08:24:44 PM
I wonder if we've gotten to the point that no matter who wins the tribes that backed the losers will be butchered.
We got to that point on day 1.
Quote from: Caliga on March 15, 2011, 08:59:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2011, 08:24:44 PM
I wonder if we've gotten to the point that no matter who wins the tribes that backed the losers will be butchered.
We got to that point on day 1.
As in day 1 of walking upright.
:lol:
I know I'm probably missing something, but if the Arab League is so much in favor of a no-fly zone, what is stopping them from pooling some jet fighters from member nations, basing them in western Egypt, and doing the no-fly zone thing themselves? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2011, 10:37:46 AM
I know I'm probably missing something, but if the Arab League is so much in favor of a no-fly zone, what is stopping them from pooling some jet fighters from member nations, basing them in western Egypt, and doing the no-fly zone thing themselves? :unsure:
Cowardice?
They need to be ever-vigilant of the JOOOOOOOS stabbing them in the back. :)
Well, at least there is some Italian SP guns in the western dessert again, now we only need some German panzers...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg832.imageshack.us%2Fimg832%2F9717%2Fguidedtour2.jpg&hash=bcf11cbc2578eb3ef7e97e14ab17bad42fb44916)
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 16, 2011, 03:14:02 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg832.imageshack.us%2Fimg832%2F9717%2Fguidedtour2.jpg&hash=bcf11cbc2578eb3ef7e97e14ab17bad42fb44916)
Yep, I think that just about wraps it up for the opposition. Many are voting with their feet and fleeing to Egypt.
The next meeting of the Arab League should be interesting.
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2011, 10:37:46 AM
I know I'm probably missing something, but if the Arab League is so much in favor of a no-fly zone, what is stopping them from pooling some jet fighters from member nations, basing them in western Egypt, and doing the no-fly zone thing themselves? :unsure:
Because it is easier if big daddy does all the work and they can bitch if Big Daddy stays asleep on the couch. Win-Win.
Yes. Complain about American non-involvement on one hand while bitching about how they won't stand for American involvement on the other. Didn't Gadaffi leave the league because of that useless petty crap?
Arabs make me want to join Grallon's nuke the living fuck out the camel jackeys side.
Quote from: citizen k on March 16, 2011, 08:36:03 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 16, 2011, 07:37:01 PM
camel jackey
Sounds disgusting.
Not as bad as camel jerky woudl be. But the idea of Mb jerking a camel is probably worse in the grand scheme of things.
What's all this tribal talk? Whoever wins, no "tribe" is getting butchered afterwards. The fighting is not going down tribal lines.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 17, 2011, 02:21:10 AM
What's all this tribal talk? Whoever wins, no "tribe" is getting butchered afterwards. The fighting is not going down tribal lines.
:yeahright:
I forgot. It is forces of evil vs. forces of DEMOCRACY!
Quote from: Tamas on March 17, 2011, 02:52:48 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on March 17, 2011, 02:21:10 AM
What's all this tribal talk? Whoever wins, no "tribe" is getting butchered afterwards. The fighting is not going down tribal lines.
:yeahright:
I forgot. It is forces of evil vs. forces of DEMOCRACY!
Yes. There are many shades of grey in a conflict between a mad dictator and his legion of mercenaries against 6 million people who have seen their nation's great wealth wasted on palaces and mercenaries.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 17, 2011, 02:21:10 AM
What's all this tribal talk? Whoever wins, no "tribe" is getting butchered afterwards. The fighting is not going down tribal lines.
Really? I had the impression it was a big factor.
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=24257
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/africa/15tribes.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8361279/How-Libyas-tribes-will-decide-Gaddafis-fate.html
Quote from: Queequeg on March 17, 2011, 03:29:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 17, 2011, 02:52:48 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on March 17, 2011, 02:21:10 AM
What's all this tribal talk? Whoever wins, no "tribe" is getting butchered afterwards. The fighting is not going down tribal lines.
:yeahright:
I forgot. It is forces of evil vs. forces of DEMOCRACY!
Yes. There are many shades of grey in a conflict between a mad dictator and his legion of mercenaries against 6 million people who have seen their nation's great wealth wasted on palaces and mercenaries.
To state this is not a tribal-based conflict, goes against everything I have read about this conflict and Libya in general. It is supposedly a tribal society, with tribal identity being more important than the national one. Even the army units are organized among tribal lines, and this alone is a pretty good hint that lines must be mostly drawn along tribal loyalties.
Too funny. Yes to a no-fly zone, no to American or NATO involvement.
What are they going to do? Bus in some Costa Rican air crews? Who the fuck do you think has all the planes?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 16, 2011, 08:38:22 PM
Quote from: citizen k on March 16, 2011, 08:36:03 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 16, 2011, 07:37:01 PM
camel jackey
Sounds disgusting.
Not as bad as camel jerky woudl be. But the idea of Mb jerking a camel is probably worse in the grand scheme of things.
Mr. Hands, the empire strikes back.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 17, 2011, 06:37:20 AM
Too funny. Yes to a no-fly zone, no to American or NATO involvement.
What are they going to do? Bus in some Costa Rican air crews? Who the fuck do you think has all the planes?
I hear Malta has a pretty strong air force these days.
Quote from: Warspite on March 17, 2011, 07:02:04 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 17, 2011, 06:37:20 AM
Too funny. Yes to a no-fly zone, no to American or NATO involvement.
What are they going to do? Bus in some Costa Rican air crews? Who the fuck do you think has all the planes?
I hear Malta has a pretty strong air force these days.
Maybe the
USS Wasp can make another run.
I'm trying my best to support the Obama administration on this and I think non-intervention is the way to go, but FFS shit or get off the pot.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42124342
QuoteThe United States, previously cool on the idea of a foreign military intervention, said the U.N. Security Council should consider tougher action than a no-fly zone over Libya.
"We are discussing very seriously and leading efforts in the Council around a range of actions that we believe could be effective in protecting civilians," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said in New York. "The U.S. view is that we need to be prepared to contemplate steps that include but perhaps go beyond a no-fly zone."
Yes, let's fling around escalated but still meaningless rhetoric, hoping for the clock to run out before we'd be able to do anything. Obama needs to man up & simply state that as horrible as it is that people are getting killed, intervention does not serve our national interests.
Quote from: Warspite on March 17, 2011, 07:02:04 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 17, 2011, 06:37:20 AM
Too funny. Yes to a no-fly zone, no to American or NATO involvement.
What are they going to do? Bus in some Costa Rican air crews? Who the fuck do you think has all the planes?
I hear Malta has a pretty strong air force these days.
A thorn in Gadaffi's side.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 17, 2011, 03:29:13 AM
Yes. There are many shades of grey in a conflict between a mad dictator and his legion of mercenaries against 6 million people who have seen their nation's great wealth wasted on palaces and mercenaries.
Got the polls to back that? Nothing shows that the revolt in Lybia has a strong support of the population.
In all intrastate conflicts, only a minority, usually elites and those they coopt, either fights or support a side. Most of the population want to be left alone. They are fine with whoever is capable to defend them, they'll even use them to settle personal scores on the local level, by branding a rival an informant for the other side.
Furthermore, remaining neutral has the marginal advantage of preventing any retaliation if their territory is controled by the wrong side.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 17, 2011, 03:29:13 AM
There are many shades of grey in a conflict between a mad dictator and his legion of mercenaries against 6 million people who have seen their nation's great wealth wasted on palaces and mercenaries.
Tough to argue that the money spent on the mercs was wasted, at this point. :hmm:
I see Spellus has bandwagoned onto another people. Look at that fucking hipster.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 17, 2011, 02:21:10 AM
What's all this tribal talk? Whoever wins, no "tribe" is getting butchered afterwards. The fighting is not going down tribal lines.
:rolleyes: You're not even trying any more.
From Al Jazeera's live blog...
Quote8:05pm
Diplomats have told Al Jazeera that there has been agreement over most of the draft resolution, but there is still concern over one paragraph, reproduced below, which deals with taking "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians, short of an "occupation force".
QuoteAuthorises member states that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the S-G, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of Resolution 1970, to protect cilivians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamarhiya, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force and requests the member states concerned to inform the S-G immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorisation conferred by this paragraph which shall immediately reported to the security council.
I dont think that neither Russia or Chinese is going to let this one pass...
So what happens to those pilots who defected to Malta? Are they given asylum there in the case of Ghaddafi winning?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 17, 2011, 03:36:20 PM
So what happens to those pilots who defected to Malta? Are they given asylum there in the case of Ghaddafi winning?
They are just sleeper agents for when the Caliphate comes to being. Or so talk radio would have us believe.
UN voting now.
Is the UN voting to disband, I hope? :w00t:
No-fly zone is apparently a go?
Approved. :(
Tinfoil fun:
http://www.debka.com/article/20772/ (http://www.debka.com/article/20772/)
Quote
Shortly before the UN Security Council met Thursday, March 17, to discuss a no-fly zone resolution for Libya, Moscow promised Washington and other Western capitals not to apply a veto, debkafile's sources report exclusively. The US, British, French, UAE and Qatar air forces were on standby to attack Libyan army targets as soon as the resolution is passed. If attacked, Libya threatens retaliation against civilian and military targets in Europe and the Middle East, according to a statement from the Defense Ministry in Tripoli..
In Tunis, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained that a UN no-fly zone over Libya "would require the bombing of targets to take out the threat posed by Muammar Qaddafi's regime."
*snip*
Iron Hillary!
With the now inevitable US action, I have to withdraw my internet support for Mummar. :weep:
NO BLOOD FOR OIL.
Goddamn it.
Maybe those Debka goons were right...
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/17/libya.civil.war/index.html
Quote
U.N. Security Council to vote on more than no-fly zone for Libya
From Richard Roth, CNN Senior U.N. Correspondent
March 17, 2011 6:13 p.m. EDT
United Nations (CNN) -- The U.N. Security Council met Thursday evening to decide on whether to impose a no-fly zone -- and potentially take other steps -- to try to halt Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's rapid advances against rebel positions in his country.
The draft the council will vote on includes language stating that "all necessary means" could be used to prevent the "slaughter of civilians," a diplomat said.
The vote is scheduled for Thursday evening.
Opposition leaders want U.N. action because of recent gains made by Gadhafi forces and an imminent offensive against Benghazi.
"We're hoping and praying that the United Nations will come up with a very firm and very fast resolution and they will enforce it immediately," said Ahmed El-Gallal, a senior opposition coordinator.
In a radio address aired on Libyan state TV, Gadhafi criticized residents of Benghazi and called them "traitors" for seeking help from outsiders.
U.S. military officials have said that a no-fly zone would typically be enforced by fighter jets whose speed and altitude make it difficult to target Gadhafi's helicopters and that it would not halt the heavy artillery the regime is using on the ground.
A draft version of a proposed resolution goes beyond a no-fly zone. It includes language saying U.N. member states could "take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force."
It also condemns the "gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would not act without a U.N. resolution.
"The international community is debating how best to prevent Gadhafi from overrunning the opposition and killing many more innocent people," she said Thursday during a visit to nearby Tunisia.
Asked whether France will be involved in strikes against Libya if a resolution is passed, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said Thursday at the United Nations that "France is available with others to put the resolution in action, including in this domain."
The draft deplores the use of mercenaries by Libyan authorities, expresses concern about the safety of foreign nationals and demands an immediate cease-fire.
The Arab League's U.N. ambassador, Yahya Mahmassani, said two Arab countries would take part in a no-fly zone operation, but he was not sure which two.
Any of the five permanent members of the council can veto a resolution. Although China and Russia, two of those countries, have expressed reservations about a no-fly zone, diplomats said that there is not expected to be a veto, but there may be abstentions.
French Ambassador to the United Nations Gerard Araud said he expects at least one abstention.
One diplomat said that forging the resolution was "like playing three-dimensional chess."
The United States is also suggesting that the United Nations should do more than impose a no-fly zone on Libya as Gadhafi's forces fight their way east toward the rebel capital of Benghazi.
Airstrikes against Gadhafi's forces are among options being discussed as diplomats try to hammer out the resolution, a diplomatic source said.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations raised the possibility Wednesday of "going beyond a no-fly zone."
Ambassador Susan Rice said that a "range of actions" were up for serious discussion, including but not limited to a no-fly zone, which has "inherent limitations in terms of protection of civilians."
Juppe flew to New York on Thursday to lobby the Security Council in person to approve a resolution on Libya. France is a co-sponsor of the measure, along with the United Kingdom and Lebanon.
Libyan state TV, meanwhile, said Thursday that the rebel capital of Benghazi would soon come under attack.
Gadhafi said that his forces will enter Benghazi to rid the city of those "traitors" and that his forces will search everyone for weapons. He added that his forces gave amnesty to those who gave up their weapons in the city of Ajdabiya. "We will not allow further bloodshed among Libyans," Gadhafi said.
"Search for the traitors, for the fanatics. Show them no mercy. We will look for them behind every wall," Gadhafi said. "This farce cannot go on."
There were air strikes on Benghazi's airport Thursday, with three blasts hitting the site about 30 kilometers (about 18 miles) outside the city.
The opposition has been using the airport to launch its own airstrikes, using a handful of jets that rebels have managed to get off the ground, opposition leaders said.
It is not clear that Gadhafi's ground forces are actually within striking range of Benghazi, but they have been fighting their way in that direction for several days.
State TV claimed Thursday that Gadhafi's forces were in control of Ajdabiya, on the road to Benghazi, a claim disputed by opposition leaders.
El-Gallal, speaking from eastern Libya, said "morale is high" and people do not want to leave strongholds because Gadhafi "is willing to kill everybody here."
The government forces have taken control of the eastern and western gates to the city and are trying to breach the inside, opposition leaders said. The opposition says it controls the southern entrance.
The opposition says it has a handful of jets that are no match with Gadhafi's superior air power and a pair of Russian-made "Hind" attack helicopters.
Ajdabiya is the last major point between pro-government forces and Benghazi. If it is retaken by pro-Gadhafi forces, it would give access to roads leading to the heart of the opposition's base.
In remarks to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, William Burns, the under secretary for political affairs at the State Department, said Gadhafi's forces are only about 160 kilometers outside Benghazi.
"They've made advances, taking full advantage of their overwhelming military superiority in military firepower," Burns said.
He expressed fear that Gadhafi, now isolated by the world community, could turn to terrorism again.
"I think there is also a very real danger that if Gadhafi is successful on the ground, that you will also face a number of other considerable risks as well: The danger of him returning to terrorism and violent extremism himself, the dangers of the turmoil that he could help create at a critical moment elsewhere in the region," Burns told the committee.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 17, 2011, 05:37:37 PM
With the now inevitable US action, I have to withdraw my internet support for Mummar. :weep:
NO BLOOD FOR OIL.
I've decided I am in favor of the no-fly zone. The result will be: longer war, ergo more dead America-hating Arabs. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2011, 05:44:01 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 17, 2011, 05:37:37 PM
With the now inevitable US action, I have to withdraw my internet support for Mummar. :weep:
NO BLOOD FOR OIL.
I've decided I am in favor of the no-fly zone. The result will be: longer war, ergo more dead America-hating Arabs. :)
Goddamn imperialistic Europeans.
Hopefully this won't end up involving American planes... but, if anything is to be done, it will, of course, have to. :glare:
Quote from: Kleves on March 17, 2011, 06:00:21 PM
Hopefully this won't end up involving American planes...
Hopefully I'll win a billion dollars in the lottery I didn't buy a ticket for tomorrow... but that's as likely as lack of American planes. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2011, 05:44:01 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 17, 2011, 05:37:37 PM
With the now inevitable US action, I have to withdraw my internet support for Mummar. :weep:
NO BLOOD FOR OIL.
I've decided I am in favor of the no-fly zone. The result will be: longer war, ergo more dead America-hating Arabs. :)
I was going to argue against the no-fly zone under the premise that a people that isn't motivated enough to secure their own freedom doesn't deserve it, but your flawless rhetoric has swayed me. :sleep:
Yeah. Once the rebels start pushing back toward Sirte, I'll switch sides. Me = pragmatic. :)
I'm surprised China didn't veto it.
More Russia that surprises me.
I guess maybe they figure its better to end it asap rather than to let it drag on and unrest to build again and for it all to be a constant fixture of the news?
But then surely they're encouraging others...
Could we at least get the new Libyan regime to reimburse us for fuel costs (mileage?) once we flatten Gadaffi? Or free oil or something? If we *have* to get involved, it shouldn't cost us anything.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2011, 06:38:11 PM
Could we at least get the new Libyan regime to reimburse us for fuel costs (mileage?) once we flatten Gadaffi? Or free oil or something? If we *have* to get involved, it shouldn't cost us anything.
We've got all Gadaffi's millions.
Hopefully we'll show some balls and take part of it to cover our expenses.
Probally not though. If we tried the Libyans would whinge.
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2011, 05:44:01 PMI've decided I am in favor of the no-fly zone. The result will be: longer war, ergo more dead America-hating Arabs. :)
Well, duh. When are you people going to figure out that's all that matters? Every Muslim that earns his little Mohammedian angel wings is a victory for The Age of Reason, regardless of the cultural relativism Dances With Hashemites spouts.
Egypt is shipping arms across the border.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704360404576206992835270906.html?mod=e2tw
So when's shit going to get blowed up real good by the West?
If they were going to do this, they should have done it two weeks about when the rebs were winning. Now that they're almost all crushed, I doubt this will do much.
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 17, 2011, 07:52:05 PM
If they were going to do this, they should have done it two weeks about when the rebs were winning. Now that they're almost all crushed, I doubt this will do much.
Qadaffi's elite units are small though, wouldn't take much to rip them apart from the air. Once that's done the rebels should be able to retake the initiative.
Tim tainted Libyan freedom.
Will America use cluster munitions on Mummar's troops? Will Euros, who hate the things, whine about it while America helps enforce the no-fly zone?
Tune in same bat time, same bat channel!
Will France surrender?
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2011, 08:32:20 PM
Will France surrender?
So 2003. You might make Zoups cry.
I made zoups cry back in 2006. :) Of course, the IDF helped.
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2011, 12:45:41 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on March 17, 2011, 02:21:10 AM
What's all this tribal talk? Whoever wins, no "tribe" is getting butchered afterwards. The fighting is not going down tribal lines.
:rolleyes: You're not even trying any more.
:huh: I'm not trolling. Just the view I got from a bunch of ex-patriates here.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2011, 09:14:44 PM
I made zoups cry back in 2006. :) Of course, the IDF helped.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Quote from: Kleves on March 17, 2011, 06:00:21 PM
Hopefully this won't end up involving American planes... but, if anything is to be done, it will, of course, have to. :glare:
We should get the Europeans to reimburse us for the costs. Sarkozy wants this to happen for political reasons and it's gonna be the US doing the heavy lifting, so he can foot the bill. :)
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 17, 2011, 08:02:23 PM
Tim tainted Libyan freedom.
We should request the UN to impose a No-Post Zone over Timmy.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 17, 2011, 10:06:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2011, 09:14:44 PM
I made zoups cry back in 2006. :) Of course, the IDF helped.
Pics or it didn't happen.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2F0903%2Fkkyz13%2Fthecryingfrenchman.jpg&hash=29f5e78058e502ea30e4976c8eeca4a9e481270c)
John Boehner's dad?
That's not 2003. It's also nothing to do with the IDF.
Plus, I ain't bald. All in all a poor effort. I swear to Hod, I used to get more hits back on EUOT, and that was 10 years ago.
Of course, you republikkkans had to go through a decade of Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter and Palin speeches. I shouldn't expect too much. :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2011, 06:10:12 PM
I'm surprised China didn't veto it.
Why? China didn't veto the Iraq no fly zone. It doesn't really matter to China.
Actually, I think China wants to vote yes, but is bound by its rhetoric to abstain. China is a target of terrorists. China needs oil and will benefit if oil prices drop. China desires a stable world in which to grow and to make money. China wants to bargain with the US at the table, not be seen as an obstructionist. Qaddafi is a past supporter of terrorists. He is a huge destablising factor which causes oil prices to rise. He is of no use to China, and has caused hod knows how many billions in economic damage to Chinese oil and construction companies. China wants him gone ASAP, but cannot say it publicly for fear of contradicting its rhetoric on not inferring with another country's affairs.
Quote from: Tyr on March 17, 2011, 06:15:21 PM
More Russia that surprises me.
I guess maybe they figure its better to end it asap rather than to let it drag on and unrest to build again and for it all to be a constant fixture of the news?
But then surely they're encouraging others...
it might be an indirect warning to Azerbaidjan after their threat to down Armenian airliners. An extra argument for Russia to intervene there shold that be needed.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 18, 2011, 01:14:49 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 17, 2011, 06:15:21 PM
More Russia that surprises me.
I guess maybe they figure its better to end it asap rather than to let it drag on and unrest to build again and for it all to be a constant fixture of the news?
But then surely they're encouraging others...
it might be an indirect warning to Azerbaidjan after their threat to down Armenian airliners. An extra argument for Russia to intervene there shold that be needed.
Would they really need to telegraph their intentions that way? Surely the Russian ambassador will just bluntly issue a warning that that won't be tolerated if they think things are gonna go down.
So it sounds like the French are planning military strikes....? Wow, go France. :cool:
Super Etendards FTW
I've decided to reduce my France mockery by about 15%. I may reduce it more depending on how well they do in Libya.
Kadaffi declared a ceasefire, asked for NGO's to send him hostages in case things went south. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2011, 05:27:20 AM
So it sounds like the French are planning military strikes....? Wow, go France. :cool:
Wrong kind of strike.
QuoteLibya has declared an immediate cease-fire, Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa said today.
Moussa Koussa :lmfao:
Wow, those cascading alliances are really out of whack. Qaddafi is toast.
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2011, 07:47:49 AM
QuoteLibya has declared an immediate cease-fire, Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa said today.
Moussa Koussa :lmfao:
Almost as good as Biggus Dickus and his wife Incontinentia Buttocks... :D
I kinda wonder if his real name is like Moussa Muhammad Ali or something but Gadhafi likes to call him Moussa Koussa as a nickname, and he thought it would be a good idea to legally change his name. :)
My boss:
"ZOMG! This is all about oil! The US is only getting involved in order to get the oil! The US doesn't get involved when countries without oil have revolts!"
You mean like Kosovo? Or Haiti? Or Panama? Or Vietnam? Or Korea?
"Yeah, well, we had other interests their! The US never did anything about Gaddafi before!"
Yeah, true - did this uprising create oil that wasn't there before? If this is all about oil, why did we wait for this uprising before we are doing anything?
"You are too naive - the US doesn't do anything in the Middle East unless there is oil!"
OK, I give up.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2011, 07:57:53 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 17, 2011, 07:52:05 PM
If they were going to do this, they should have done it two weeks about when the rebs were winning. Now that they're almost all crushed, I doubt this will do much.
Qadaffi's elite units are small though, wouldn't take much to rip them apart from the air. Once that's done the rebels should be able to retake the initiative.
But they're not going to do that unless Gadaffi's elite units take to the sky. This is a no-fly zone, not intervention.
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2011, 07:43:13 AM
I've decided to reduce my France mockery by about 15%. I may reduce it more depending on how well they do in Libya.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. France is led by a Hungarian Jew. According to the First Law of French Warfare we are dealing with a nasty BBB right now, not the Cheese eating surrender Monkey's of the Chirac era.
Quote from: Josephus on March 18, 2011, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2011, 07:57:53 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 17, 2011, 07:52:05 PM
If they were going to do this, they should have done it two weeks about when the rebs were winning. Now that they're almost all crushed, I doubt this will do much.
Qadaffi's elite units are small though, wouldn't take much to rip them apart from the air. Once that's done the rebels should be able to retake the initiative.
But they're not going to do that unless Gadaffi's elite units take to the sky. This is a no-fly zone, not intervention.
The US has a long history of accidentally bombing things we don't really mean to though...
Why would Libya call a ceasefire now? On the one hand, if he's winning, you wouldn't think Qaddafi would give up; on the other hand, if he's afraid of losing, you wouldn't think he'd be rational enough to quit, especially without trying to call the West's bluff.
Quote from: Viking on March 18, 2011, 08:59:01 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. France is led by a Hungarian Jew. According to the First Law of French Warfare we are dealing with a nasty BBB right now, not the Cheese eating surrender Monkey's of the Chirac era.
Sarko is a Jew? Who leads France? Are you sure about this? :blink:
I think the Big G is there to stay. Next time we should work on north Korea so they can't invade us in the Red Dawn remake.
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2011, 09:09:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 18, 2011, 08:59:01 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. France is led by a Hungarian Jew. According to the First Law of French Warfare we are dealing with a nasty BBB right now, not the Cheese eating surrender Monkey's of the Chirac era.
Sarko is a Jew? Who leads France? Are you sure about this? :blink:
Sarko is a Roman Catholic who was born in Paris.
Quote from: Berkut on March 18, 2011, 08:59:21 AM
Quote from: Josephus on March 18, 2011, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2011, 07:57:53 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 17, 2011, 07:52:05 PM
If they were going to do this, they should have done it two weeks about when the rebs were winning. Now that they're almost all crushed, I doubt this will do much.
Qadaffi's elite units are small though, wouldn't take much to rip them apart from the air. Once that's done the rebels should be able to retake the initiative.
But they're not going to do that unless Gadaffi's elite units take to the sky. This is a no-fly zone, not intervention.
The US has a long history of accidentally bombing things we say we don't really mean to though...
fyp
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2011, 09:09:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 18, 2011, 08:59:01 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. France is led by a Hungarian Jew. According to the First Law of French Warfare we are dealing with a nasty BBB right now, not the Cheese eating surrender Monkey's of the Chirac era.
Sarko is a Jew? Who leads France? Are you sure about this? :blink:
He's only part Jew ethnically, and was raised Catholic. I'm not sure that's Jew enough for the French to care.
Quote from: Josephus on March 18, 2011, 08:58:16 AM
But they're not going to do that unless Gadaffi's elite units take to the sky. This is a no-fly zone, not intervention.
Since Hillary said we might have to do some bombing, that means we can bomb whatever the hell we feel like bombing.
Quote from: Josephus on March 18, 2011, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2011, 07:57:53 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 17, 2011, 07:52:05 PM
If they were going to do this, they should have done it two weeks about when the rebs were winning. Now that they're almost all crushed, I doubt this will do much.
Qadaffi's elite units are small though, wouldn't take much to rip them apart from the air. Once that's done the rebels should be able to retake the initiative.
But they're not going to do that unless Gadaffi's elite units take to the sky. This is a no-fly zone, not intervention.
I was of the understanding this authorized everything short of boots on the ground. Am I mistaken?
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2011, 09:20:09 AM
He's only part Jew ethnically, and was raised Catholic. I'm not sure that's Jew enough for the French to care.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. :)
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2011, 09:15:37 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2011, 09:09:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 18, 2011, 08:59:01 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. France is led by a Hungarian Jew. According to the First Law of French Warfare we are dealing with a nasty BBB right now, not the Cheese eating surrender Monkey's of the Chirac era.
Sarko is a Jew? Who leads France? Are you sure about this? :blink:
Sarko is a Roman Catholic who was born in Paris.
Fuck you too!
His father was a Hungarian, his mother was a (french?) jew.
Quote
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/18/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=C1
Libya announces cease-fire amid foreign military moves
(CNN) -- Libya announced an "immediate" cease-fire and a halt to military action Friday, hours after the U.N. Security Council authorized the use of force to protect besieged civilians in Libya.
Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa said Libya is "obliged to accept the Security Council resolution that permits the use of force to protect the civilian population."
He said Libya has decided on "an immediate ceasefire and the stoppage of all military operations."
It was not immediately clear how his announcement could affect plans of some countries to intervene militarily in Libya -- authorities in Britain and France had talked before Koussa's remarks of imminent military action.
Speaking to reporters Friday in Tripoli, Koussa said Libya plans to protect civilians and provide them with humanitarian assistance and that it is obliged to protect all foreigners and their assets. He also called for a fact-finding mission to sort out the events on the ground.
Koussa says the Libya was disappointed in the imposition of a no-fly zone, arguing that it will hurt the civilian populatio. He also said the use of military power violates the country's sovereignty and goes against the U.N. charter, but he acknowledged that some countries may yet intervene.
"There are signs this indeed might take place," Koussa said.
Earlier Friday, talk emerged in Europe of swift military action against Moammar Gadhafi's regime.
Speaking in an interview with RTL radio, French government spokesman Francois Baroin said France plans to participate in what he described as "swift" efforts.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain has started preparations to deploy aircraft, and "in the coming hours" they will move to air bases where they will be positioned for any "necessary action."
Spain will offer NATO the use of two military bases and also provide air and naval forces for use in operations involving Libya, Defense Minister Carme Chacon said on Friday in Madrid, a defense ministry spokesman told CNN.
The two bases to be offered in southern Spain are the Rota air-naval station, where a contingent of U.S. troops is also based, and the airbase at Moron de la Frontera. Those, as well as the offer to provide air and naval assets, would be subject to parliamentary approval, the minister said at an event at a Spanish air base in Madrid, the spokesman said.
U.S. President Barack Obama plans to make remarks on the Libyan crisis on Friday afternoon.
The council Thursday night voted 10 to 0 with five abstentions to authorize "states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians." It also imposed a no-fly zone, banning all flights in Libyan airspace, with exceptions that involve humanitarian aid and evacuation of foreign nationals.
The decisive Security Council move comes after weeks of civil war between the Gadhafi regime and opposition forces, a conflict spurred by an anti-government uprising and regime violence against civilians, which the U.N. resolution cites as "outrageous."
Details have not fully emerged of how an international military operation might unfold in Libya.
The United States and its NATO partners have several contingencies in place to act quickly, according to an administration official familiar with planning. They include air strikes and cruise missile attacks designed to cripple Libyan air defenses and punish the military units that are leading Gadhafi's push on opposition strongholds in the east, the official said.
Obama will insist on a major Arab role in any no-fly zone, the official said.
The Arab League's U.N. ambassador, Yahya Mahmassani, said two Arab countries would take part in a no-fly zone operation, but he was not sure which two.
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday that establishing a zone would take "upwards of a week."
Frustration and anger in Benghazi
Libyan rebel: We've seen heavy gunfire
No-fly zone a slippery slope to more?
Libya 'welcomes' U.N. resolution
RELATED TOPICS
* Libya
* United Nations Security Council
* Middle East Conflict
But the U.S. military does not view a no-fly zone alone as sufficient to stop Gadhafi. Military officials have said that this move would not halt the heavy artillery the regime is using on the ground.
All commercial air traffic has been shut down in Libya, an official at Eurocontrol said on Friday.
The opposition, with devoted but largely untrained and under-equipped units, has suffered military setbacks this week. But their hopes were buoyed by the U.N. vote, particularly in rebel-held Benghazi, where an assault by pro-Gadhafi forces has been expected.
The resolution singles out the city. It says U.N. member states can "take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force."
Gadhafi's son Saadi told CNN Thursday evening that troops will change their tactics and take up positions around Benghazi Saturday or Sunday and assist people fleeing from the city.
The younger Gadhafi said there will be no large-scale assault. Instead police and anti-terrorism units will be sent into the rebel stronghold to disarm the opposition. Unspecified humanitarian groups can help with the exodus of civilians from Benghazi, Saadi Gadhafi said.
In a radio address aired on Libyan state TV, Gadhafi criticized residents of Benghazi and called them "traitors" for seeking help from outsiders.
Along with France, Britain and the United States voted for the resolution, which condemns the "gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions."
It details enforcement of an arms embargo against Libya, the freezing of assets and a ban on most flights.
"The United States stands with the Libyan people in support of their universal rights," said U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice.
The abstentions came from China, Russia, Germany, India, and Brazil. Germany said it was concerned about a protracted military conflict. China said it opposes the use of armed force in international relations.
Quote from: Josephus on March 18, 2011, 08:58:16 AM
But they're not going to do that unless Gadaffi's elite units take to the sky. This is a no-fly zone, not intervention.
Any unit that is a threat to the civilian population is fair game.
Quote from: citizen k on March 18, 2011, 10:02:31 AM
Quote from: Josephus on March 18, 2011, 08:58:16 AM
But they're not going to do that unless Gadaffi's elite units take to the sky. This is a no-fly zone, not intervention.
Any unit that is a threat to the civilian population is fair game.
Which pretty much means any unit anywhere at any time.
I am frankly very surprised that such an open ended resolution passed.
Interesting to see what Qaddafi does. I am not buying his "immediate cease fire" talk. Although it would be pretty awesome (and not just for Libya) if the threat of UN action causes him to just decide "fuck it, I think I will retire to Monaco..."
Apparently, despite Moosa Caboosa's announcement, Gadhafi's forces are still trying to storm Misrata. France to the rescue? :)
QuoteSecretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday the United States was not impressed by words of ceasefire from the Libyan government and would keep pressing for leader Muammar Gaddafi to step down.
"We are going to be not responsive or impressed by words, we would have to see actions on the ground and that is not yet at all clear," Clinton said to reporters after meeting with Ireland's Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore.
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2011, 10:39:49 AM
Apparently, despite Moosa Caboosa's announcement, Gadhafi's forces are still trying to storm Misrata. France to the rescue? :)
Cry havoc! And let slip the frogs of war.
Quote from: Malthus on March 18, 2011, 10:48:41 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2011, 10:39:49 AM
Apparently, despite Moosa Caboosa's announcement, Gadhafi's forces are still trying to storm Misrata. France to the rescue? :)
Cry havoc! And let slip the frogs of war.
Brilliant! :D
Quote from: KRonn on March 18, 2011, 09:50:49 AM
QuoteThe abstentions came from China, Russia, Germany, India, and Brazil. Germany said it was concerned about a protracted military conflict. China said it opposes the use of armed force in international relations.
I don't get the position of the German government in this issue. Why do we join the BRICs and Lybia instead of our NATO partners? Now Germany doesn't just let its allies fight alone, but even abandons them in diplomacy? It's not like we would have contributed meaningfully in a military intervention anyway, but why can't we at least join the rest of the West in the UN? :huh: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Berkut on March 18, 2011, 10:16:04 AM
Quote from: citizen k on March 18, 2011, 10:02:31 AM
Quote from: Josephus on March 18, 2011, 08:58:16 AM
But they're not going to do that unless Gadaffi's elite units take to the sky. This is a no-fly zone, not intervention.
Any unit that is a threat to the civilian population is fair game.
Which pretty much means any unit anywhere at any time.
I am frankly very surprised that such an open ended resolution passed.
Interesting to see what Qaddafi does. I am not buying his "immediate cease fire" talk. Although it would be pretty awesome (and not just for Libya) if the threat of UN action causes him to just decide "fuck it, I think I will retire to Monaco..."
There had to be a lot of back channel discussions to get nations to abstain, and allow this to pass. Then for a rather open ended resolution. So I'm thinking of what other motives, or plans, might be in the works with allowing such an open deal. :hmm:
Quote
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: We only have a minute left. So let me do a few political questions and then I'll let you go. You can give me short answers.
HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: I'm out of politics, you know, Wolf.
BLITZER: You can give me short answers if you want.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: Well, you're not really political.
If the president is reelected, do you want to serve a second term as Secretary of State?
CLINTON: No.
BLITZER: Would you like to serve as Secretary of Defense?
CLINTON: No.
BLITZER: Would you like to be Vice President of the United States?
CLINTON: No.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: Would you like to be President of the United States?
CLINTON: No.
hmmm
She knows the world will be ending and has been promised a part in the Anti-Christ's regime. You heard it here folks.
He forgot to ask about Attorney General. :rolleyes:
As if Hillary would choose Wolf Blitzer's show as a platform for her next political role. :rolleyes:
Where's the killing, the mass bombardment of military infrastructure. Where's my tv shock & awe. :mad:
Obama's all like...restore electricity...or face the consequences.
BBC sez RAF deploying 9 and 31 squadrons.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 18, 2011, 05:10:03 PM
Where's the killing, the mass bombardment of military infrastructure. Where's my tv shock & awe. :mad:
Obama's all like...restore electricity...or face the consequences.
America is all mellow now man.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
BBC sez RAF deploying 9 and 31 squadrons.
Canada is deploying a half dozen CF-18s.
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2011, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
BBC sez RAF deploying 9 and 31 squadrons.
Canada is deploying a half dozen CF-18s.
Don't strain yourself Canucks.
So...how is this going to play out?
Hopefully in some way that includes lots of explosions. CNN really deserves a ratings boost.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 18, 2011, 05:25:22 PM
So...how is this going to play out?
My guess is ground strikes only in response to provocations from Gaddafi. He tries to cut off food shipments to Benghazi, those guys get wacked. Some other hamlet rises up, he moves to suppress, those guys get wacked. So he ends up hunkering down in Tripoli. Then God knows what. Rebels trained by the SAS, armed by the Egyptians and assisted by Egyptian "volunteers" go on the offensive? Stalemate?
Quote from: Berkut on March 18, 2011, 10:16:04 AM
I am frankly very surprised that such an open ended resolution passed.
The UN has been pretty good on this. The ICC investigation was ordered very soon as were pretty comprehensive sanctions and the, as you say, surprisingly open-ended resolution.
I'm intrigued by the US role in this. The first I heard of anything more than a no-fly zone was Susan Rice a couple of days ago which suggested something shifted either in the US administration or in negotiations. I'm not clear at all what happened.
QuoteInteresting to see what Qaddafi does. I am not buying his "immediate cease fire" talk. Although it would be pretty awesome (and not just for Libya) if the threat of UN action causes him to just decide "fuck it, I think I will retire to Monaco..."
This is something I find really interesting is the balance of creating a system of international justice that punishes war crimes and crimes against humanity against no longer being able to offer the world's tyrants a comfortable birth in Monte Carlo. I think I favour the former. It is better that Charles Taylor is being prosecuted and can't chill in Lagos, or convert to Islam and get a poolside seat in Jeddah, but it's a problem with international law that it can end up endangering civilians even more.
QuoteWhy would Libya call a ceasefire now? On the one hand, if he's winning, you wouldn't think Qaddafi would give up; on the other hand, if he's afraid of losing, you wouldn't think he'd be rational enough to quit, especially without trying to call the West's bluff.
He's wily and, despite all appearances to the consequence, not mad.
QuoteSarko is a Jew? Who leads France? Are you sure about this?
First Jewish President (Jewish like Disraeli), but they've had two Jewish Premiers (Jewish like Ben Gurion) back when the Prime Minister mattered more than the President.
QuoteHis father was a Hungarian, his mother was a (french?) jew.
I think she's Franco-Greek.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 18, 2011, 06:51:02 PM
QuoteWhy would Libya call a ceasefire now? On the one hand, if he's winning, you wouldn't think Qaddafi would give up; on the other hand, if he's afraid of losing, you wouldn't think he'd be rational enough to quit, especially without trying to call the West's bluff.
He's wily and, despite all appearances to the consequence, not mad.
I read a piece recently that said while he's not delusional, did argue he could be I think suffering from borderline personality.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2011, 05:17:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2011, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
BBC sez RAF deploying 9 and 31 squadrons.
Canada is deploying a half dozen CF-18s.
Don't strain yourself Canucks.
:lol:
"Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Iroquois-class Destroyer!"
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2011, 01:39:55 PM
He forgot to ask about Attorney General. :rolleyes:
And the Supreme Court. The last refuge of Papism in the US needs protestant blood.
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2011, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
BBC sez RAF deploying 9 and 31 squadrons.
Canada is deploying a half dozen CF-18s.
That's the version with the bacon fryer in the cockpit EH?
:mad:
Quote from: Viking on March 18, 2011, 07:31:13 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2011, 01:39:55 PM
He forgot to ask about Attorney General. :rolleyes:
And the Supreme Court. The last refuge of Papism in the US needs protestant blood.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 18, 2011, 06:56:08 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2011, 05:17:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2011, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
BBC sez RAF deploying 9 and 31 squadrons.
Canada is deploying a half dozen CF-18s.
Don't strain yourself Canucks.
:lol:
"Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Iroquois-class Destroyer!"
Actually we sent a
Halifax class frigate as well. :canuck:
Quote from: Zanza2 on March 18, 2011, 12:44:32 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 18, 2011, 09:50:49 AM
QuoteThe abstentions came from China, Russia, Germany, India, and Brazil. Germany said it was concerned about a protracted military conflict. China said it opposes the use of armed force in international relations.
I don't get the position of the German government in this issue. Why do we join the BRICs and Lybia instead of our NATO partners? Now Germany doesn't just let its allies fight alone, but even abandons them in diplomacy? It's not like we would have contributed meaningfully in a military intervention anyway, but why can't we at least join the rest of the West in the UN? :huh: :rolleyes:
Qadaffi even bombed a Berlin disco didn't he? No lingering feelings over that?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 18, 2011, 08:21:31 PM
Qadaffi even bombed a Berlin disco didn't he? No lingering feelings over that?
A GI hangout disco.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2011, 08:23:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 18, 2011, 08:21:31 PM
Qadaffi even bombed a Berlin disco didn't he? No lingering feelings over that?
A GI hangout disco.
180 Germans were wounded
Anybody caught in a disco post 1979 deserves that.
From Benghazi...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F2mh7y45.jpg&hash=c4179cde060ea035a75e813c25cdb588e70d8bbe)
A Libyan Mig-23 shot down over the Benghazi airport, pilot ejecting some 40-50m over the ground. The Soviet's may not always have made the best planes, but their ejection seats has always been the best... :thumbsup:
edit: fund a better picture
"Splash one Flogger"
Anyway, it looks like the pro- daffy troops are making a mad dash at Benghazi before International pressure forces them to stop. It's unlikely that they will try and take the city it self, but are going for the airport and the main road to Tubruk in an attempt to isolate Benghazi...
I hate it when idiot journalists refer to SP Art, IFV's, APC's or Light Armour as "Tanks". It just shows their own ignorance and incompetence in assessing the nature of military equipment. So when I saw this nice pic in profile claiming it is a fighter I just had to look up the profile of the SU-24, the MiG-23 and the Mig-27. Unfortunately for my smug self image it was actually a MiG-23 fighter.
BTW, I'm staying up tonight to watch the start of the Second Air Campaign against the Locals in Libya.
Sarko heir of Léon Blum and Pierre Mendès-France (the latter of Portuguese jewish ascendancy). Interesting :)
Maternal grand-father was a Thessalonica jew (Sepharadic) who later became a Catholic convert to marry. Nico's father is Hungarian as previously noted. So he has foreign heritage but claiming he is a foreigner is as wacky as birthers' claims about Obama and/or that whole hyphenated identity nonsense ;) Sarko never went to Hungary before being president nor does he speak Hungarian and much less ladino.
From Al Jazeera:
Quote11:11am
Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the head of the Libyan Interim Council, tells Al Jazeera that residential areas in Benghazi are under attack by artillery and tanks. He also said that the plane shot down belongs to the rebels.
I wouldnt be surprised if the rebel Mig-23 turn out have been shot down by the rebels themself, sucks to be a rebel pilot these days...
At least he survived. They don't really need jets anymore.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 18, 2011, 08:21:31 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on March 18, 2011, 12:44:32 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 18, 2011, 09:50:49 AM
QuoteThe abstentions came from China, Russia, Germany, India, and Brazil. Germany said it was concerned about a protracted military conflict. China said it opposes the use of armed force in international relations.
I don't get the position of the German government in this issue. Why do we join the BRICs and Lybia instead of our NATO partners? Now Germany doesn't just let its allies fight alone, but even abandons them in diplomacy? It's not like we would have contributed meaningfully in a military intervention anyway, but why can't we at least join the rest of the West in the UN? :huh: :rolleyes:
Qadaffi even bombed a Berlin disco didn't he? No lingering feelings over that?
I don't think that has any relevance for current policy. The reason why Germany abstains is rather simple by the way: there are crucial regional elections this Sunday and the next one. As Merkel's coalition might lose the south-western state of Baden-Württemberg for the first time since the 1950s, they don't want to risk to be called war mongers by the opposition. They already had to do a risky and awkward volte face on nuclear policy last week.
No, the reason germany is reluctant to get involved is the wide availability of footage of the DAK and Panzerarmeé Afrika.
Sadly, if they did send WWII surplus, the quality of armed forces involved would probably improve.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 19, 2011, 04:54:17 AM
At least he survived. They don't really need jets anymore.
By the looks of it what they need are international visas and some seed money to get started in other countries.
Quote from: Zanza2 on March 19, 2011, 04:56:45 AM
I don't think that has any relevance for current policy. The reason why Germany abstains is rather simple by the way: there are crucial regional elections this Sunday and the next one. As Merkel's coalition might lose the south-western state of Baden-Württemberg for the first time since the 1950s, they don't want to risk to be called war mongers by the opposition. They already had to do a risky and awkward volte face on nuclear policy last week.
Like I said in an earlier thread, Patton has pussified the German people for all eternity. :(
I quite like the German abstention. I think it's closest to my own view on the whole thing. No doubt everyone in the UK, US and France will support this, especially once they see planes in the sky and our boys at risk. But I'm very ambivalent and not entirely comfortable with the whole thing. I think the German vote was, as far as is possible, an honest abstention.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2011, 07:10:35 AM
I quite like the German abstention. I think it's closest to my own view on the whole thing. No doubt everyone in the UK, US and France will support this, especially once they see planes in the sky and our boys at risk. But I'm very ambivalent and not entirely comfortable with the whole thing. I think the German vote was, as far as is possible, an honest abstention.
To me it all smacks of 'Do Something' rather than a coherent strategy.
Quote from: Warspite on March 19, 2011, 07:21:30 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2011, 07:10:35 AM
I quite like the German abstention. I think it's closest to my own view on the whole thing. No doubt everyone in the UK, US and France will support this, especially once they see planes in the sky and our boys at risk. But I'm very ambivalent and not entirely comfortable with the whole thing. I think the German vote was, as far as is possible, an honest abstention.
To me it all smacks of 'Do Something' rather than a coherent strategy.
Well to be fair, I don't think anybody saw this massive upheaval in North Africa or the Gulf (to a lesser extent) coming so it is probably hard to plan for. I think the only coherent strategy at work is to let a weakened Gadaffi remain in power so that the pro-democracy - if it is that - movement faulters without anymore stable regimes being toppled and a return to the status quo comes as soon as possible.
I am preparing my weekend TV viewing around this. Snacks have been ordered, Diet Dr. Pepper is chilling.
Impress me France and UK, impress me.
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2011, 08:17:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 18, 2011, 06:56:08 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2011, 05:17:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2011, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
BBC sez RAF deploying 9 and 31 squadrons.
Canada is deploying a half dozen CF-18s.
Don't strain yourself Canucks.
:lol:
"Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Iroquois-class Destroyer!"
Actually we sent a Halifax class frigate as well. :canuck:
ooooooooooooo.
Quote from: Warspite on March 19, 2011, 07:21:30 AMTo me it all smacks of 'Do Something' rather than a coherent strategy.
Yep. And what worries me most is that neither Obama or Cameron seem aware that what we've embarked on is regime change. I think motivated by an entirely understandable and quite right desire to stop brutality against civilians we're engaging in military action when the end goal isn't actually clear.
What if Gaddafi wins on the ground? Do we stop? What if the rebels start winning and we see their tanks shelling Tripoli? Or indeed if we see rebel repraisals against regime loyallists?
I don't understand what it is that we want to be the situation after this intervention (which wasn't true in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq) and what's worse I don't think our political leadership does. The only coherent answer I can think of is regime change but no-one's saying that except, possibly, Sarko. Not least because it's difficult.
I wouldn't be surprised if the reports from Benghazi turns out to be a rebel counter offensive gone wrong. That the rebels have tried to force the hand of the international community, after Gaddafi a announced the ceasefire. An bombardment of the pro- Gaddafi units are much more likely as long as the fighting on the ground continues. A prolonged ceasefire with the pro- gaddafi troops just holding their current positions works against the goals of the rebels, both their short therm goals and on long therm goals. They would much more like to see the international coalition clear the way, all along the coast up to Tripoli.
Quote from: Viking on March 19, 2011, 05:04:11 AM
No, the reason germany is reluctant to get involved is the wide availability of footage of the DAK and Panzerarmeé Afrika.
Sadly, if they did send WWII surplus, the quality of armed forces involved would probably improve.
Not for the rifles, while the AK-47 might be a copy of the groundbreaking StG 44, it is still an improved weapon.
Not quite confirmed yet, but it appears that French fighter planes has taken control of the air space over Benghazi...
It's confirmed, Der Spiegel, France 24 and BBC reports that French fighter are flying recon missions over large parts of Libya...
French reconnaissance missions currently flying over all of Libya according to French military source.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2011/03/19/01003-20110319ARTFIG00319-libye-kadhafi-viole-le-cessez-le-feu.php
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2011, 07:47:58 AM
Or indeed if we see rebel repraisals against regime loyallists?
then we bomb them. Iirc the UN resolution allows the intervention-forces to engage anyone that engages in atrocities against civilians.
Sarkozy declares French jets will target Gadaffi tanks.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 19, 2011, 09:43:40 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2011, 07:47:58 AM
Or indeed if we see rebel repraisals against regime loyallists?
then we bomb them. Iirc the UN resolution allows the intervention-forces to engage anyone that engages in atrocities against civilians.
How can high flying aircrafts prevent a group of armed men going from house to house doing night, threating, beating up or even killing people inside the houses...
Quote from: Caliga on March 19, 2011, 06:36:40 AMLike I said in an earlier thread, Patton Zhukov has pussified the German people for all eternity. :(
FYP. Anyway, I don't want Germany to be involved in this conflict. But I think we should at least express support for our friends by voting for the resolution, even if we won't participate in any military actions.
This war sucks.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 19, 2011, 09:58:23 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 19, 2011, 09:43:40 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2011, 07:47:58 AM
Or indeed if we see rebel repraisals against regime loyallists?
then we bomb them. Iirc the UN resolution allows the intervention-forces to engage anyone that engages in atrocities against civilians.
How can high flying aircrafts prevent a group of armed men going from house to house doing night, threating, beating up or even killing people inside the houses...
Carpetbombing will kill the thugs, victims and bystanders.
Very boring. I guess I'm stuck watching basketball.
Poor show France and UK, poor show.
Entertainment rating as of now: F
So it's started, French jets are bombing Quadaffi's troops.
I hear the Chinese are blocking Google searches.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 19, 2011, 09:58:23 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 19, 2011, 09:43:40 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2011, 07:47:58 AM
Or indeed if we see rebel repraisals against regime loyallists?
then we bomb them. Iirc the UN resolution allows the intervention-forces to engage anyone that engages in atrocities against civilians.
How can high flying aircrafts prevent a group of armed men going from house to house doing night, threating, beating up or even killing people inside the houses...
by bombing them good :p
Dropping educational leaflets sternly advising against such activities.
This is very disappointing. On the one hand, it's good that Europe is finally putting it's money where it's mouth is in terms of getting snookered by alleged 'liberal' oppositions. On the other hand, the Libyan opposition is even worse than Qaddafi, so I'm annoyed that they're helping the wrong side.
:yawn:
wonder if the rebels mount a real counter offensive and push the pro- daffy troops back on their own, not just 200 wannabe fighters in pick-up trucks racing up and down the main coastal road, while posing for the cameras...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg191.imageshack.us%2Fimg191%2F2226%2F800xe.jpg&hash=11f06314fc44075685d228c525fcdbc3294f4695)
I think that guy sold me my snacks yesterday.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 19, 2011, 01:40:12 PM
wonder if the rebels mount a real counter offensive and push the pro- daffy troops back on their own, not just 200 wannabe fighters in pick-up trucks racing up and down the main coastal road, while posing for the cameras...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg191.imageshack.us%2Fimg191%2F2226%2F800xe.jpg&hash=11f06314fc44075685d228c525fcdbc3294f4695)
Uh oh. :unsure: I thought the rebels didn't have tanks. This guy's posing days may be over.
Quote from: DGuller on March 19, 2011, 01:45:18 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 19, 2011, 01:40:12 PM
wonder if the rebels mount a real counter offensive and push the pro- daffy troops back on their own, not just 200 wannabe fighters in pick-up trucks racing up and down the main coastal road, while posing for the cameras...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg191.imageshack.us%2Fimg191%2F2226%2F800xe.jpg&hash=11f06314fc44075685d228c525fcdbc3294f4695)
Uh oh. :unsure: I thought the rebels didn't have tanks. This guy's posing days may be over.
They have Tanks and artillery, just as they got or rather had Mig-23's, they just not very good at using them...
Anyone know where the French planes are flying out of?
Italy, most likely.
Sarkozy's left nostril
Corsica
bonjourmew!
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 19, 2011, 09:43:40 AMthen we bomb them. Iirc the UN resolution allows the intervention-forces to engage anyone that engages in atrocities against civilians.
I don't think us bombing them is any more likely than NATO bombing the KLA in case of attacks on civilians.
Hope so.
Lets also hope the supposed 8000 professional, fully organised soldiers the rebels have show themselves. They've been suspiciously abscent lately.
Quote from: Tyr on March 19, 2011, 02:25:18 PM
Hope so.
Lets also hope the supposed 8000 professional, fully organised soldiers the rebels have show themselves. They've been suspiciously abscent lately.
He's gotta keep those guys in Tripoli in case the rebs try and slip a unit in during the mechanized movement phase.
Quote from: jamesww on March 19, 2011, 02:27:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2011, 02:23:56 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 19, 2011, 09:43:40 AMthen we bomb them. Iirc the UN resolution allows the intervention-forces to engage anyone that engages in atrocities against civilians.
I don't think us bombing them is any more likely than NATO bombing the KLA in case of attacks on civilians.
Well the KLA were a much more organised 'entity' ; they were proficient at ethnic cleansing, torture and progressing gangsterism into political office, so no.
You left out drug trafficking.
Finally. US strikes underway.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 19, 2011, 02:38:55 PM
Finally. US strikes underway.
F-35s?
Edit: Oh, wait. They're not ready yet. Over budget, over time, will they won't they ever exist BUT THANK GOD THEY MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE DIDNT THEY FUCKING NORTARDS!
Quote from: Slargos on March 19, 2011, 02:39:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 19, 2011, 02:38:55 PM
Finally. US strikes underway.
F-35s?
Not in service yet.
The way they are talking, cruise missile strikes.
I THINK I'M GETTING A WAR BONER
According to one article saw, a "U.S. official" says we're initially just going to play a low-key role of hitting Libyan air defenses with cruise missiles to protect French aircraft.
Fuck this shit. I'm transferring to the 73" TV. CAPTAIN ON THE BRIDGE!
Poor Gadaffi, if he'd just shut up and gone on quietly slaughtering his enemies instead of ranting for hours on live tv on the need to exterminate the rats he wouldn't be in this situation.
Quote9:31pm
AFP reports that loud blasts have been heard east of the Tripoli, according to witnesses. It is not immediately clear what caused the blasts.
I'VE GOT A MURDER BONER
And yet when I post holocaust pictures I get banned. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Slargos on March 19, 2011, 02:51:28 PM
And yet when I post holocaust pictures I get banned. :rolleyes:
You just ain't cool like me.
Quote from: Slargos on March 19, 2011, 02:51:28 PM
And yet when I post holocaust pictures I get banned. :rolleyes:
US Navy > Wiking SS
Dumbass.
Boy was I wrong. I thought there would be a long series of cat and mouse diplomatic moves before we started blowing shit up.
Something that made me laugh this morning: reading about likely participants in the international effort in Libya.
USS Ponce.
LOL.
I'd hate to be one of the guys posted on that ship.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2011, 02:55:45 PM
Boy was I wrong. I thought there would be a long series of cat and mouse diplomatic moves before we started blowing shit up.
Obama has Tigerblood.
Quote from: Tyr on March 19, 2011, 02:55:58 PM
Something that made me laugh this morning: reading about likely participants in the international effort in Libya.
USS Ponce.
LOL.
I'd hate to be one of the guys posted on that ship.
Meanwhile your warfighting warriors are smoking their fags.
QuoteUSS Ponce (LPD-15), an Austin-class amphibious transport dock, was the only ship of the United States Navy to be named for the city in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which in turn was named after the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon, the first governor of Puerto Rico and European discoverer of Florida.
:shakeshead:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 19, 2011, 02:54:55 PM
Quote from: Slargos on March 19, 2011, 02:51:28 PM
And yet when I post holocaust pictures I get banned. :rolleyes:
US Navy > Wiking SS
Dumbass.
Nigger plz. Seagoing tubs full of circlejerking faggots ain't got nothing on the Wiking PzGrenadiers. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 19, 2011, 02:56:21 PM
Obama has Tigerblood.
I think he reflected on it, asked around, and figured out that it's OK to blow people as long as we don't in any way get anything out of it. The Clinton doctrine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2011, 03:03:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 19, 2011, 02:56:21 PM
Obama has Tigerblood.
I think he reflected on it, asked around, and figured out that it's OK to blow people as long as we don't in any way get anything out of it. The Clinton doctrine.
You just can't be happy for the black man, can you?
So how come Bahrain's autocratic despot gets away with it and poor Gadaffi doesn't? :hmm:
Quote from: Josephus on March 19, 2011, 03:06:17 PM
So how come Bahrain's autocratic despot gets away with it and poor Gadaffi doesn't? :hmm:
Stop trying to harsh my murder boner buzz.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 19, 2011, 03:04:36 PM
You just can't be happy for the black man, can you?
I was the one giving him an A for shutting up during the great Egyptian slave revolt. Like some of the Britanicos I don't think this move is well thought out.
Another oil war. :bleeding:
Quote from: Josephus on March 19, 2011, 03:06:17 PM
So how come Bahrain's autocratic despot gets away with it and poor Gadaffi doesn't? :hmm:
Being chummy with Ahmadatthumurrikans in Iran got Gadaffi bumped to the front of the line? :unsure:
Quote from: Josephus on March 19, 2011, 03:06:17 PM
So how come Bahrain's autocratic despot gets away with it and poor Gadaffi doesn't? :hmm:
He didn't go on tv to rant hour after hour on the need to "exterminate the rats". He just quietly murders his subjects with some help from the Saudis. :nelson:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 19, 2011, 03:13:06 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 19, 2011, 03:06:17 PM
So how come Bahrain's autocratic despot gets away with it and poor Gadaffi doesn't? :hmm:
Being chummy with Ahmadatthumurrikans in Iran got Gadaffi bumped to the front of the line? :unsure:
The shitites in Bahrain being chummy with Ahmajaddingdong gets Bahrain sent down the list. And oil.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 19, 2011, 03:13:06 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 19, 2011, 03:06:17 PM
So how come Bahrain's autocratic despot gets away with it and poor Gadaffi doesn't? :hmm:
Being chummy with Ahmadatthumurrikans in Iran got Gadaffi bumped to the front of the line? :unsure:
Gaddafi has no friends. The Saudis hate him, the Iranians hate him, the Lebanese hate him (Hezbollah particularly). When discussing the possibility that he might flee the only countries people thought may accept him were Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Burkina Faso.
Quote from: Josephus on March 19, 2011, 03:06:17 PM
So how come Bahrain's autocratic despot gets away with it and poor Gadaffi doesn't? :hmm:
When Gaddafi gives Johns Hopkins enough money to build a critical care tower, then we'll leave him alone, too.
Quote from: Slargos on March 19, 2011, 03:03:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 19, 2011, 02:54:55 PM
Quote from: Slargos on March 19, 2011, 02:51:28 PM
And yet when I post holocaust pictures I get banned. :rolleyes:
US Navy > Wiking SS
Dumbass.
Nigger plz. Seagoing tubs full of circlejerking faggots ain't got nothing on the Wiking PzGrenadiers. :rolleyes:
I'm going to murder your grandparents in their hex the next time I play World In Flames.
Those poor white on black counters. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 19, 2011, 03:24:17 PM
Quote from: Slargos on March 19, 2011, 03:03:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 19, 2011, 02:54:55 PM
Quote from: Slargos on March 19, 2011, 02:51:28 PM
And yet when I post holocaust pictures I get banned. :rolleyes:
US Navy > Wiking SS
Dumbass.
Nigger plz. Seagoing tubs full of circlejerking faggots ain't got nothing on the Wiking PzGrenadiers. :rolleyes:
I'm going to murder your grandparents in their hex the next time I play World In Flames.
Nigger plz. You couldn't murder a bag of newly aborted fetuses.
Gadaffi just moved the foreign press corps to his palace. :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2011, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 19, 2011, 03:13:06 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 19, 2011, 03:06:17 PM
So how come Bahrain's autocratic despot gets away with it and poor Gadaffi doesn't? :hmm:
Being chummy with Ahmadatthumurrikans in Iran got Gadaffi bumped to the front of the line? :unsure:
Gaddafi has no friends. The Saudis hate him, the Iranians hate him, the Lebanese hate him (Hezbollah particularly). When discussing the possibility that he might flee the only countries people thought may accept him were Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Burkina Faso.
And Belarus.
The Axis of Fail.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 19, 2011, 03:40:20 PM
Gadaffi just moved the foreign press corps to his palace. :lol:
He's creative, I'll give him that.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 19, 2011, 03:40:20 PM
Gadaffi just moved the foreign press corps to his palace. :lol:
Ok, I'm back to rooting for Gadhafi. :cool:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2011, 02:55:45 PM
Boy was I wrong. I thought there would be a long series of cat and mouse diplomatic moves before we started blowing shit up.
It really is amazing how things heated up.
Quote from: Slargos on March 19, 2011, 03:03:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 19, 2011, 02:54:55 PM
Quote from: Slargos on March 19, 2011, 02:51:28 PM
And yet when I post holocaust pictures I get banned. :rolleyes:
US Navy > Wiking SS
Dumbass.
Nigger plz. Seagoing tubs full of circlejerking faggots ain't got nothing on the Wiking PzGrenadiers. :rolleyes:
CDM was talking about the US Navy, not the RN.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 19, 2011, 01:40:12 PM
wonder if the rebels mount a real counter offensive and push the pro- daffy troops back on their own, not just 200 wannabe fighters in pick-up trucks racing up and down the main coastal road, while posing for the cameras...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg191.imageshack.us%2Fimg191%2F2226%2F800xe.jpg&hash=11f06314fc44075685d228c525fcdbc3294f4695)
why is he ordering two beers? Shouldn't he be fighting?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2011, 07:47:58 AM
Quote from: Warspite on March 19, 2011, 07:21:30 AMTo me it all smacks of 'Do Something' rather than a coherent strategy.
Yep. And what worries me most is that neither Obama or Cameron seem aware that what we've embarked on is regime change. I think motivated by an entirely understandable and quite right desire to stop brutality against civilians we're engaging in military action when the end goal isn't actually clear.
Obama has been telling Gaddafi to step down for a while now. Nor did he seem as eager to get involved militarily - it was really French, British and the Arab League pushing for the no-fly zone and intervention.
So now we're bombing them... to enforce a no-fly zone? Seems that we're more or less committed to removing Q/K/Gadhafi by default now.
I do hope we are keeping track of our expenses (receipts, mileage, etc.) so we can bill the next Libyan gov't. Looks like we launched 110 Tomahawk missiles. At $569,000 a pop, that comes out to $62,590,000 they owe us just for that salvo alone.
More like a million a pop. A few were brit ones. They had the good sense to buy tomahawks years ago.
Good job, Yanks, Frogs and Limeys. :showoff:
Quote from: Kleves on March 19, 2011, 05:19:19 PM
So now we're bombing them... to enforce a no-fly zone? Seems that we're more or less committed to removing Q/K/Gadhafi by default now.
There's nothing about a no-fly zone that's just what was talked about prior to the resolution. The UN authorised all necessary measures short of occupation to stop attacks on the civilian population. That's something else that concerns me, that we've gone from a no-fly zone to a full scale intervention with barely any time for public debate or consensus building on the subject
Of course knocking out air defence is necessary in a no-fly zone.
Plus the mime school and accordion factory.
OK, here's your starting lineup:
QuoteFrance
* Deployed eight Rafale and four Mirage jets to survey rebel-held Benghazi; one fired on a Libyan military vehicle in first military strike of operation.
* Six C-135 refueling tankers
* 1 AWACS surveillance plane
* Deploying the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier to the region Sunday from Toulon.
* Also envisages using anti-air frigates Jean-Bart and Forbin, anti-submarine frigate Dupleix, the Aconit frigate and a refueling ship La Meuse.
Canada
* Sent six F-18s to Italy base; 140 military personnel involved.
* Frigate HMCS Charlottetown is in Mediterranean for possible staging ground for Canadian forces.
United States
* Prepared to launch missile attacks on Libyan air defenses but so far not participating in initial air missions.
* Has two guided-missile destroyers in the Mediterranean, the USS Barry and USS Stout, two amphibious warships, the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, and a command-and-control ship, the USS Mount Whitney. The submarine USS Providence was also in the Mediterranean.
* Witnesses reported five F-18s, two C-17s and a C-130 cargo plane arrived at U.S. air base at Aviano in northern Italy, which is home to the 31st Fighter Wing.
Denmark
* Six F-16s arrived at U.S. air base in Sigonella, Sicily and could be deployed as early as Sunday; 132 support staff.
Italy
* Offered use of seven military bases: U.S. air bases at Sigonella, Sicily and Aviano in northern Italy; Italian air bases in Amendola near Foggia, Decimomannu in Sardinia, Gioia del Colle near Bari, base on Sicilian island of Pantelleria, and the military airport of Trapani, Sicily.
* Proposed NATO base in Naples serve as coordination point for operation.
* Says it has four anti-radar and anti-missile Tornados and six other aircraft available to fly with 15 minutes notice.
* Aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi off Sicily with eight aircraft aboard.
Spain
* Sent four F-18s and a Boeing 707 refueling plane to Italy base.
* Deploying a submarine, naval frigate and a surveillance plane.
* Placed two bases at NATO's disposal, Rota and Moron de la Frontera, where several U.S. Air Force planes were seen Friday.
Britain
* Said it would send Typhoon and Tornado jets to air bases, but no British fighter assets have yet been deployed, the Ministry of Defense said.
* Britain's air base in southern Cyprus, RAF Akrotiri, supporting AWACS surveillance aircraft and has a team of personnel there to coordinate British aircraft movement.
* Two British frigates, HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland, are in the Mediterranean off Libya's coast.
Norway
* Offered six F-16s, with around 100 support staff, but operational capabilities five-six days off.
* Considering contributing an Orion maritime surveillance plane.
No mention of faggot ass Wiking panzergrenadiers.
Quote
Spain
* Sent four F-18s and a Boeing 707 refueling plane to Italy base.
* Deploying a submarine, naval frigate and a surveillance plane.
Wow, Zap is really straining there.
I gotta say there is something "elegant" about the names of French military units/ships. They are like the elves/eldars or the minbari. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2011, 05:58:57 PM
Of course knocking out air defence is necessary in a no-fly zone.
This.
You can't enforce a no-fly zone unless you remove potential harm. I think the US involvement, from what I've been hearing, will be limited to a few days of Tomahawking the Libyan anti-air capabilities, before letting the Frenchies and Brits go in there with their planes.
Well, I'm spent. G' night folks!
-There's been talk of a few hundred cruise missiles being fired at Libya.
Hope they're going to reimburse us, those are a million a pop. :P
Don't Frenchies already patrol/control Benghazi airspace?
Quote from: Tyr on March 19, 2011, 07:04:22 PM
-There's been talk of a few hundred cruise missiles being fired at Libya.
Hope they're going to reimburse us, those are a million a pop. :P
I hear China is blocking Google searches about Egypt.
Quote from: Josephus on March 19, 2011, 06:36:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2011, 05:58:57 PM
Of course knocking out air defence is necessary in a no-fly zone.
This.
You can't enforce a no-fly zone unless you remove potential harm. I think the US involvement, from what I've been hearing, will be limited to a few days of Tomahawking the Libyan anti-air capabilities, before letting the Frenchies and Brits go in there with their planes.
Nope. In Iraq we waited for SAM radar to light up one of our planes before we mooshed it with a HARM.
Is it true what i'm hearing about China blocking Google searches on Egypt?
Quote from: Josephus on March 19, 2011, 07:38:51 PM
Is it true what i'm hearing about China blocking Google searches on Egypt?
Yes.
Quote from: Kleves on March 19, 2011, 05:19:19 PM
So now we're bombing them... to enforce a no-fly zone? Seems that we're more or less committed to removing Q/K/Gadhafi by default now.
Yeah, no point in keeping him around, hoping he won't start torching oil installations as a last defiant gesture. Take him out much like the Taliban were the first time with the Benghazis acting as the Northern Alliance. If he stays in power, he'll be an implacable enemy of the West.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 19, 2011, 05:38:24 PM
More like a million a pop. A few were brit ones. They had the good sense to buy tomahawks years ago.
The newer ones are cheaper.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2
God fucking damnit.
Quote from: Neil on March 19, 2011, 12:31:48 PM
This is very disappointing. On the one hand, it's good that Europe is finally putting it's money where it's mouth is in terms of getting snookered by alleged 'liberal' oppositions. On the other hand, the Libyan opposition is even worse than Qaddafi, so I'm annoyed that they're helping the wrong side.
This seems like one of those claims that require evidence.
Quote from: Viking on March 19, 2011, 09:05:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 19, 2011, 12:31:48 PM
This is very disappointing. On the one hand, it's good that Europe is finally putting it's money where it's mouth is in terms of getting snookered by alleged 'liberal' oppositions. On the other hand, the Libyan opposition is even worse than Qaddafi, so I'm annoyed that they're helping the wrong side.
This seems like one of those claims that require evidence.
Dude, it's Neil. He has such a complex about being Canadian he'll say the sun will rise in the west tomorrow if it gives him the validation he craves.
Quote from: jamesww on March 19, 2011, 08:26:55 PMal-Arabiya are claiming NATO planes downed by libyians. :hmm:
Meh, the Serbians on average shot down half a squadron a day for the entire Kosovo campaign back in the day. ;)
is the sa-5 a real danger to modern NATO aircraft?
Quote from: citizen k on March 19, 2011, 09:36:27 PMis the sa-5 a real danger to modern NATO aircraft?
Ducks are a real danger to modern NATO aircraft. Anything's possible with bad luck.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2011, 05:58:57 PM
Quote from: Kleves on March 19, 2011, 05:19:19 PM
So now we're bombing them... to enforce a no-fly zone? Seems that we're more or less committed to removing Q/K/Gadhafi by default now.
There's nothing about a no-fly zone that's just what was talked about prior to the resolution. The UN authorised all necessary measures short of occupation to stop attacks on the civilian population. That's something else that concerns me, that we've gone from a no-fly zone to a full scale intervention with barely any time for public debate or consensus building on the subject
Of course knocking out air defence is necessary in a no-fly zone.
Agreed. What are the UN's plans if the no-fly zone doesn't work? Or if Ghadaffi remains in power, whether he stops attacking or not? And if Ghadaffi leaves, and/or the the Rebels take over, who are they? Are they fighting for democracy or their version of what ever authoritarian rule they have in mind?
It's a worthy goal to remove Ghadaffi, but we have to be wary of a power vacuum with different factions fighting for control. We, the West, may get sucked into this a lot more heavily if we start stomething we don't know how to finish. Break it and we may own it.
Tough choices though. Sit back, do nothing, and wind up allowing a bloodbath to ensue as Ghadaffi's forces and goon squads take revenge upon the populace.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 19, 2011, 09:38:25 PM
Ducks are a real danger to modern NATO aircraft. Anything's possible with bad luck.
Then the real threats to the NATO planes should be mirrors, stepladders, and black cats, right?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 19, 2011, 10:06:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 19, 2011, 09:38:25 PM
Ducks are a real danger to modern NATO aircraft. Anything's possible with bad luck.
Then the real threats to the NATO planes should be mirrors, stepladders, and black cats, right?
There's a reason we didn't invite the Poles.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FObserver%2FColumnist%2FColumnists%2F2011%2F3%2F19%2F1300549540461%2FChris-Riddell-20-March-20-002.jpg&hash=8e8a794ef9365189e791c8ce4274fb163b330432)
Watching BBC world and there are reports that Qadaffi is razing Misurata to the ground with heavy shelling, and blaming it on the west.
QuoteAgreed. What are the UN's plans if the no-fly zone doesn't work? Or if Ghadaffi remains in power, whether he stops attacking or not? And if Ghadaffi leaves, and/or the the Rebels take over, who are they? Are they fighting for democracy or their version of what ever authoritarian rule they have in mind?
Well I would assume NATO forces have a battle plan even if they have not broadcasted it to your and Gaddafi's benefit.
As for the rebel's goals pretty much all analytical media (such as the Economist) are plastered with reports on the political situation there but I guess we will continue following the Kronn's Principle - if information has not been posted on Languish it does not exist.
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2011, 06:50:00 AM
QuoteAgreed. What are the UN's plans if the no-fly zone doesn't work? Or if Ghadaffi remains in power, whether he stops attacking or not? And if Ghadaffi leaves, and/or the the Rebels take over, who are they? Are they fighting for democracy or their version of what ever authoritarian rule they have in mind?
Well I would assume NATO forces have a battle plan even if they have not broadcasted it to your and Gaddafi's benefit.
As for the rebel's goals pretty much all analytical media (such as the Economist) are plastered with reports on the political situation there but I guess we will continue following the Kronn's Principle - if information has not been posted on Languish it does not exist.
Maybe the West will surprise us all but I come down on Kronn's side right now. This operation has all the hallmarks of the light-footprint, 'hoof it and hope' approach to intervention that is backed up by little in the way of political planning; even Kosovo, usually hailed as the great success of intervention, has nearly come a cropper on several occasions (and twelve years' on, no one still knows what to do with the northern Kosovo Serbs) for precisely this conspiracy of optimism. Do Something! and work out the problems later. This worked really well in: Somalia, ex-Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Congo ...
I very much doubt if any Western media outlet, even the Economist, actually has a real idea of what the rebel situation is in Libya. Foreign journalists parachuted in as a crisis begins do not suddenly become aware of decades-old currents of social division and interaction over the course of a month.
So yes, the Kronn principle of scepticism has been borne out a lot more in recent history than the Martinus position of 'The Economist leader said it should all be ok'.
I wake up and there was a B-2 strike and Marine harriers in action. The war boner returns. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 20, 2011, 07:25:06 AM
I wake up and there was a B-2 strike and Marine harriers in action. The war boner returns. :)
Maybe you just have to pee.
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2011, 06:50:00 AM
QuoteAgreed. What are the UN's plans if the no-fly zone doesn't work? Or if Ghadaffi remains in power, whether he stops attacking or not? And if Ghadaffi leaves, and/or the the Rebels take over, who are they? Are they fighting for democracy or their version of what ever authoritarian rule they have in mind?
Well I would assume NATO forces have a battle plan even if they have not broadcasted it to your and Gaddafi's benefit.
As for the rebel's goals pretty much all analytical media (such as the Economist) are plastered with reports on the political situation there but I guess we will continue following the Kronn's Principle - if information has not been posted on Languish it does not exist.
Don't be so smarmy. I don't understand why you feel this will be so doable without a long, protracted committment and all that goes with that. What kind of government, etc. That's what I'm looking at, and hence my questions. And I'm sure that you will certainly begin to bash the US and others for being involved, at some point. It's easy to get in, not so easy to play the middle and end game. Other nations may very well need to put troops in to safe guard civivilansl, that safe guarding which is UN goal.
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2011, 06:50:00 AM
QuoteAgreed. What are the UN's plans if the no-fly zone doesn't work? Or if Ghadaffi remains in power, whether he stops attacking or not? And if Ghadaffi leaves, and/or the the Rebels take over, who are they? Are they fighting for democracy or their version of what ever authoritarian rule they have in mind?
Well I would assume NATO forces have a battle plan even if they have not broadcasted it to your and Gaddafi's benefit.
As for the rebel's goals pretty much all analytical media (such as the Economist) are plastered with reports on the political situation there but I guess we will continue following the Kronn's Principle - if information has not been posted on Languish it does not exist.
But we're not talking about a battle plan here. We're talking about political considerations and victory conditions, which are
only useful if they are broadcasted to the world at large. If the West is going to be called upon for a long-term occupation of Libya, they'll have to sell that. Right now, it's smooth sailing, but what are they going to do when the opposition turns on each other? Those are the sorts of things that people want to know.
I suppose the Arkestras of the world would always prefer us to sit on our hands seeing as how they critique all of the West's major operations in the last few decades.
The result of the first French air strikes south of Benghazi...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi55.tinypic.com%2Fwths9w.jpg&hash=b7546a39bd1b055900321f16ad94e3050a54e4a6)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi55.tinypic.com%2F2hs10kk.jpg&hash=279bb0c328a9f84ea5cdbe1cf3d5732f67906ff7)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi56.tinypic.com%2F20z20yv.jpg&hash=a6b1229dfbc0c09bb3773177d1ba41904993493f)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi56.tinypic.com%2F2vs11m9.jpg&hash=fbc5948926f647fa36eb37d2a53ebc3086d32d28)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UcEj3KPyjo0/TYYbV3nRTNI/AAAAAAAAAac/k-vwNwgBecQ/s1600/24ni9o4.jpg)
Nice shooting Frogs. :frog:
Quote#
1536: The Arab League's secretary general, Amr Moussa, has announced an emergency meeting of the grouping, saying that the current situation isn't what Arabs had envisaged. "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said.
Arabs. :lol:
:rolleyes: Jeebus, arab politicans make European politicans look like bastions of moral integrity and paladins of truth and goodness.
I wonder what kind of tank that is in the first picture. Doesn't look Soviet. Looks kind of like one of those Vicker exports from the '60's.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2011, 02:07:29 PM
I wonder what kind of tank that is in the first picture. Doesn't look Soviet. Looks kind of like one of those Vicker exports from the '60's.
Wop SPA.
What model?
You made that up!
Quote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2011, 02:15:10 PM
What model?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmaria_(artillery) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmaria_(artillery))
I actually don't think the Arab League statement is that goofy. They said they would support a no-fly zone only, and this is clearly more than a no-fly zone.
Well, except the part about civilians, which is kind of goofy.
Those dastardly :Joos, they're playing Libya and USA out against each other to gain World Supremacy!
Thankfully the rebels have exposed the Truth :osama:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2011, 02:30:22 PM
I actually don't think the Arab League statement is that goofy. They said they would support a no-fly zone only, and this is clearly more than a no-fly zone.
Well, except the part about civilians, which is kind of goofy.
Of course, the moment the resolution text was floated, it was clear that this was not a 'no fly zone', rather a 'close air support for a rebel movement'.
Quote from: Warspite on March 20, 2011, 05:22:57 PM
Of course, the moment the resolution text was floated, it was clear that this was not a 'no fly zone', rather a 'close air support for a rebel movement'.
I think the original Towelhead Alliance statement predates the draft resolution, no?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2011, 02:30:22 PM
I actually don't think the Arab League statement is that goofy. They said they would support a no-fly zone only, and this is clearly more than a no-fly zone.
Well, except the part about civilians, which is kind of goofy.
It's goofy because they're a bunch of fucking ingrates. If they had taken action themselves rather than impotently asking someone else to do it, they'd have been able to use the precise amount of force they find palatable.
Quote from: derspiess on March 20, 2011, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2011, 02:30:22 PM
I actually don't think the Arab League statement is that goofy. They said they would support a no-fly zone only, and this is clearly more than a no-fly zone.
Well, except the part about civilians, which is kind of goofy.
It's goofy because they're a bunch of fucking ingrates. If they had taken action themselves rather than impotently asking someone else to do it, they'd have been able to use the precise amount of force they find palatable.
THe laughable thing about the advocates of this intervention pointing to the Arab League's position as granting legitimacy is that the Arab league is made up of precisely the same kind of unelected autocrat as Gadaffi. Their position is just score-settling; he's not a popular man in the region. They'd love to seem him go, and are happy for Western blood and treasure to be expended doing it. I suspect they're now back-tracking publicly to save a bit of face now that the inevitable Crusader rhetoric is coming out.
Quote from: Warspite on March 20, 2011, 05:48:54 PM
THe laughable thing about the advocates of this intervention pointing to the Arab League's position as granting legitimacy is that the Arab league is made up of precisely the same kind of unelected autocrat as Gadaffi. Their position is just score-settling; he's not a popular man in the region. They'd love to seem him go, and are happy for Western blood and treasure to be expended doing it. I suspect they're now back-tracking publicly to save a bit of face now that the inevitable Crusader rhetoric is coming out.
All true, but irrelevant. The logic of multilateralism is built on having everybody on board, not on consistency.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2011, 02:30:22 PM
I actually don't think the Arab League statement is that goofy. They said they would support a no-fly zone only, and this is clearly more than a no-fly zone.
Well, except the part about civilians, which is kind of goofy.
That's what I'm confused about. What did the UN sanction? Cause bombing tanks is not a no-fly zone enforcement. This is taking sides in an internal conflict.
You people take the fun out of wars.
Quote from: Josephus on March 20, 2011, 05:56:54 PM
What did the UN sanction?
All measures necessary to protect the civilian population.
Quote from: Josephus on March 20, 2011, 05:56:54 PM
This is taking sides in an internal conflict.
Well boo-fucking-hoo.
Quote from: Josephus on March 20, 2011, 05:56:54 PMThis is taking sides in an internal conflict.
All conflicts are local.
Quote from: Josephus on March 20, 2011, 05:56:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2011, 02:30:22 PM
I actually don't think the Arab League statement is that goofy. They said they would support a no-fly zone only, and this is clearly more than a no-fly zone.
Well, except the part about civilians, which is kind of goofy.
That's what I'm confused about. What did the UN sanction? Cause bombing tanks is not a no-fly zone enforcement. This is taking sides in an internal conflict.
Not if they bomb tanks on both sides. It just so happens Government forces have all the tanks. If Gaddafi gives the rebels some tanks I'm sure we would be willing to bomb those as well.
Quote from: dps on March 20, 2011, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 20, 2011, 05:56:54 PM
This is taking sides in an internal conflict.
Well boo-fucking-hoo.
It's one thing to denounce a man for attacking his own citizens, but doing something about it...despicable!
Quote from: Josephus on March 20, 2011, 05:56:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2011, 02:30:22 PM
I actually don't think the Arab League statement is that goofy. They said they would support a no-fly zone only, and this is clearly more than a no-fly zone.
Well, except the part about civilians, which is kind of goofy.
That's what I'm confused about. What did the UN sanction? Cause bombing tanks is not a no-fly zone enforcement. This is taking sides in an internal conflict.
Are you really surprised? The french are this close to escalate Opération Épervier.
You guys got me wrong. I'm not editorializing, this time. I've hated Gadaffi since I first came across him in the mid 70s. I was just trying to clarify what the UN position on this.
I'm not exactly clear what is trying to be accomplish here actually.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2011, 09:26:22 PM
I'm not exactly clear what is trying to be accomplish here actually.
Regime change
While Gaddafi's death is long overdue, I'm a little uneasy about how quickly a "no-fly zone" turned into a regime change campaign. One day the no-fly zone seemed like a distant possibility, the next day we suddenly get a resolution allowing us to bomb all kinds of shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2011, 09:26:22 PM
I'm not exactly clear what is trying to be accomplish here actually.
Now I'm trying to figure out what the subject of this sentence was.
Quote from: DGuller on March 20, 2011, 09:39:26 PM
While Gaddafi's death is long overdue, I'm a little uneasy about how quickly a "no-fly zone" turned into a regime change campaign. One day the no-fly zone seemed like a distant possibility, the next day we suddenly get a resolution allowing us to bomb all kinds of shit.
That happened when Gaddafi decided to start slaughtering peaceful protesters who were hell bent on regime change. The "It's either him or us" dichotomy in this case is driven by internal Libyan politics.
Quote from: DGuller on March 20, 2011, 09:39:26 PM
While Gaddafi's death is long overdue, I'm a little uneasy about how quickly a "no-fly zone" turned into a regime change campaign. One day the no-fly zone seemed like a distant possibility, the next day we suddenly get a resolution allowing us to bomb all kinds of shit.
To be accurate, the calls from Western govts for Gaddafi to stand down started long before the "no-fly zone" was ever implemented.
The attack on regime positions in Libya is probably the most moral thing the West has done, militarily-wise, in decades. Unlike Iraq, this actually is a "just war".
I like to think that Western leaders have done so out of their deep seated moral sense of right and wrong, but even if not, at least they are smart enough (unlike some people on Languish) to know that if they sat that one through, they would have lost any remains of moral high ground they claim to have.
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2011, 11:08:54 AM
I suppose the Arkestras of the world would always prefer us to sit on our hands seeing as how they critique all of the West's major operations in the last few decades.
I think it's more to do with him being a Croat. They like to finish slaughtering each other without some Americans or Europeans intervening to stop them. Takes all the fun out of genocide.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.militaryphotos.net%2Fforums%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D151956%26amp%3Bd%3D1300662603&hash=e29e33a655eabf3934a4bea9cb549b78eed44ed3)
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2011, 07:11:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 20, 2011, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 20, 2011, 05:56:54 PM
This is taking sides in an internal conflict.
Well boo-fucking-hoo.
It's one thing to denounce a man for attacking his own citizens, but doing something about it...despicable!
You broke the chain of escalation. Where were the strongly worded letters? The vehement denouncals? The pleas for reason? I didn't see even ONE signature campaign.
This is absolutely appalling! :mad:
Quote from: Slargos on March 21, 2011, 03:48:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2011, 07:11:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 20, 2011, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 20, 2011, 05:56:54 PM
This is taking sides in an internal conflict.
Well boo-fucking-hoo.
It's one thing to denounce a man for attacking his own citizens, but doing something about it...despicable!
You broke the chain of escalation. Where were the strongly worded letters? The vehement denouncals? The pleas for reason? I didn't see even ONE signature campaign.
This is absolutely appalling! :mad:
Now we see where GWB went wrong. He should just have "implemented the no fly zone" more aggressively rather than calling it an invasion.
Quote from: Viking on March 21, 2011, 04:13:35 AM
Quote from: Slargos on March 21, 2011, 03:48:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2011, 07:11:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 20, 2011, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 20, 2011, 05:56:54 PM
This is taking sides in an internal conflict.
Well boo-fucking-hoo.
It's one thing to denounce a man for attacking his own citizens, but doing something about it...despicable!
You broke the chain of escalation. Where were the strongly worded letters? The vehement denouncals? The pleas for reason? I didn't see even ONE signature campaign.
This is absolutely appalling! :mad:
Now we see where GWB went wrong. He should just have "implemented the no fly zone" more aggressively rather than calling it an invasion.
I may be missing something, but did GWB invade Iraq because Saddam was at the time shelling his own people and it was the only way to stop the bloodshed? I thought it had to do with the weapons of mass destruction that never existed.
The difference between both operations is not in what you call them, but the motives/reasons for starting it.
I hope you are right and Saddam was indeed slaughtering his own people en masse when Americans invaded. As otherwise your post would just prove you are a fucking idiot.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2011, 04:28:29 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 21, 2011, 04:13:35 AM
Quote from: Slargos on March 21, 2011, 03:48:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2011, 07:11:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 20, 2011, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 20, 2011, 05:56:54 PM
This is taking sides in an internal conflict.
Well boo-fucking-hoo.
It's one thing to denounce a man for attacking his own citizens, but doing something about it...despicable!
You broke the chain of escalation. Where were the strongly worded letters? The vehement denouncals? The pleas for reason? I didn't see even ONE signature campaign.
This is absolutely appalling! :mad:
Now we see where GWB went wrong. He should just have "implemented the no fly zone" more aggressively rather than calling it an invasion.
I may be missing something, but did GWB invade Iraq because Saddam was at the time shelling his own people and it was the only way to stop the bloodshed? I thought it had to do with the weapons of mass destruction that never existed.
The difference between both operations is not in what you call them, but the motives/reasons for starting it.
I hope you are right and Saddam was indeed slaughtering his own people en masse when Americans invaded. As otherwise your post would just prove you are a fucking idiot.
:lol:
Look at the nigerian calling the icelander black. :hug:
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2011, 02:47:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2011, 11:08:54 AM
I suppose the Arkestras of the world would always prefer us to sit on our hands seeing as how they critique all of the West's major operations in the last few decades.
I think it's more to do with him being a Croat. They like to finish slaughtering each other without some Americans or Europeans intervening to stop them. Takes all the fun out of genocide.
Your knowledge of international relations and intervention appears as sound as your grasp of the law.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2011, 02:40:23 AM
The attack on regime positions in Libya is probably the most moral thing the West has done, militarily-wise, in decades.
Killing Al Qaedatards and their Talibanistani sugardaddies for payback almost 10 years going has been quite moral.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2011, 05:55:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2011, 02:40:23 AM
The attack on regime positions in Libya is probably the most moral thing the West has done, militarily-wise, in decades.
Killing Al Qaedatards and their Talibanistani sugardaddies for payback almost 10 years going has been quite moral.
Not really. Vengeance is hardly moral.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2011, 05:59:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2011, 05:55:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2011, 02:40:23 AM
The attack on regime positions in Libya is probably the most moral thing the West has done, militarily-wise, in decades.
Killing Al Qaedatards and their Talibanistani sugardaddies for payback almost 10 years going has been quite moral.
Not really. Vengeance is hardly moral.
The fuck it ain't.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2011, 04:28:29 AM
I may be missing something, but did GWB invade Iraq because Saddam was at the time shelling his own people and it was the only way to stop the bloodshed? I thought it had to do with the weapons of mass destruction that never existed.
The difference between both operations is not in what you call them, but the motives/reasons for starting it.
I hope you are right and Saddam was indeed slaughtering his own people en masse when Americans invaded. As otherwise your post would just prove you are a fucking idiot.
What you are missing is the irony of France taking an inch from the UNSC (no fly zone) and turning it into a foot (no drive zone) when France wishes to act.
http://audioboo.fm/boos/307814-usaf-ec-130j-steel-74-transmitting-on-6877-0-khz-libya-20-march-2011
LOL. Psy Ops.
Quote from: Viking on March 21, 2011, 06:50:22 AM
What you are missing is the irony of France taking an inch from the UNSC (no fly zone) and turning it into a foot (no drive zone) when France wishes to act.
It's like rain on your wedding day.
Or a free ride when you've already paid.
Wouldn't you say it's more like the good advice that you just didn't take, though?
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2011, 09:50:54 AM
Wouldn't you say it's more like the good advice that you just didn't take, though?
You'd know a lot about that.
I like Head over Feet better. So plz act that one out instead.
Quote from: Caliga on March 21, 2011, 10:26:52 AM
I like Head over Feet better. So plz act that one out instead.
Mentioning feet while Marty is around...:x
:shifty:
Are they willing to go all the way and depose Khaddafi or is this no-fly/no-drive just 'pussying' around? Or is the partition of Lybia the objective?
Oh and can someone tell the Arab bitches who requested an intervention to stop moaning when the intervention is actually happening!?
G.
LOL, UAE backed out. Arab promises are worthless as usual.
Drama in the Kremlin! :o Putin criticized the Crusade on Libya, Medvedev criticized Putin for running his mouth. Looks like northern Japan won't be the only radioactive place in the near future.
Sounds like it's time for a show trial.... eh Comrade Medvedev? :menace:
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2011, 07:58:48 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 21, 2011, 06:50:22 AM
What you are missing is the irony of France taking an inch from the UNSC (no fly zone) and turning it into a foot (no drive zone) when France wishes to act.
It's like rain on your wedding day.
Get your filthy hands off my schtick, you grubby bastard. :P
It's a very small war, quite new, I doubt you've ever heard about it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F82OOd.jpg&hash=103c750f75336df152401f7773eede7d0c831f74)
Look at that fucking hipster.
Also, I now think the French suckered us. Well played Sarkozy. Well played.
No new pictures of blown up shit?
I was expecting this to be as awesome and well televised as the Kosovo war was.
It is not.
Was Kosovo well televised? Really? I can't remeber seeing a single explosion from that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2011, 05:38:10 PM
No new pictures of blown up shit?
Looks like Sirte and some place in southern Libya got most of the attention today.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2011, 05:43:51 PM
Was Kosovo well televised? Really? I can't remeber seeing a single explosion from that.
You don't remember the train video?
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 21, 2011, 11:32:52 AM
LOL, UAE backed out. Arab promises are worthless as usual.
Thought it was Qatar that promised to send planes.
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2011, 06:27:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 21, 2011, 11:32:52 AM
LOL, UAE backed out. Arab promises are worthless as usual.
Thought it was Qatar that promised to send planes.
They actually sent some.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 21, 2011, 06:31:30 PM
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2011, 06:27:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 21, 2011, 11:32:52 AM
LOL, UAE backed out. Arab promises are worthless as usual.
Thought it was Qatar that promised to send planes.
They actually sent some.
OK, good. But I hadn't heard that the UAE had promised any help in the first place.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.smh.com.au%2F2011%2F03%2F21%2F2244273%2Fart_libyabombs-420x0.jpg&hash=967d9b2a1d96b4aa2d27bc1633e97d20b3e7873f)
http://www.smh.com.au/world/next-stop-tripoli-as-bombs-boost-libyan-rebels-20110321-1c3y6.html
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2011, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2011, 05:43:51 PM
Was Kosovo well televised? Really? I can't remeber seeing a single explosion from that.
You don't remember the train video?
Or the Stealth fighter wreckage? That was a shitload of balsa wood that got shipped to Moscow.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2011, 09:04:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2011, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2011, 05:43:51 PM
Was Kosovo well televised? Really? I can't remeber seeing a single explosion from that.
You don't remember the train video?
Or the Stealth fighter wreckage? That was a shitload of balsa wood that got shipped to Moscow.
Yeah, but that was during the Yeltsin years. They probably tried to ground it up and snort it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2011, 05:43:51 PM
Was Kosovo well televised? Really? I can't remeber seeing a single explosion from that.
It ended up getting cancelled halfway thru it's first season and replaced with the High School drama "Columbine".
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2011, 09:59:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2011, 05:43:51 PM
Was Kosovo well televised? Really? I can't remeber seeing a single explosion from that.
It ended up getting cancelled halfway thru it's first season and replaced with the High School drama "Columbine".
They made two spin of series "hey, the Ruskies took my air port" and "Run Serb, run". Both poorly scripted...
From NRO:
The president can't distinguish the Libya campaign from the Iraq War.
In the Democratic primary campaign of 2008, candidate Barack Obama scored points because he, unlike many Democrats, had opposed the Iraq War from the start. Although he was a state senator at the time of the 2002 congressional vote authorizing military action, Obama had delivered a speech to an anti-war rally in Chicago.
He said, "I don't oppose all wars.#...#What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."
#ad#Regarding the justifications for war with Iraq, state senator Obama was unpersuaded: " I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.#...#But#...#he poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors."
As American forces join the war against Moammar Qaddafi, the nation is entitled to an explanation. How is the case for war against Qaddafi smarter (remember, Obama is only against "dumb" wars) or less "ideological" or more prudent than that for war against Saddam Hussein?
Certainly with an army of only 50,000, Qaddafi represents far less of a threat to his neighbors or to us than did Saddam, who commanded an army estimated at 350,000. As for humanitarian concerns, what Qaddafi is doing to the rebels in Libya is exactly what Saddam did to his domestic enemies, but on a reduced scale. As Obama himself said, Saddam was "a ruthless man#...#who butchers his own people to secure his power." Yet that didn't justify a war, state senator Obama told us.
Senator Obama did not believe that Saddam posed a danger to the United States or to his neighbors -- though he had attacked or invaded three of his neighbors: Iran, Kuwait, and Israel. Yet Qaddafi has hardly ranged beyond his own borders.
While Obama (like the rest of the world) was convinced that Saddam had "developed chemical and biological weapons" -- and though he knew that Saddam had actually attacked his own people from the air with chemical weapons -- he didn't think that his possession of those weapons warranted war. In Qaddafi's case, there is no threat of WMDs, as the dictator flamboyantly relinquished his WMD program after seeing Saddam's fate.
How are Obama's motives regarding military action against Moammar Qaddafi less "cynical" than those he was so contemptuous of in Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle? What "ideological agenda" was the Bush administration "shoving down our throats" that Obama is not himself duplicating? Is he opposed to the Freedom Agenda? What, exactly, was so obnoxious about the Bush program?
How has Obama concluded that a war against another Middle East villain is now justified and not "dumb" or "rash"? And on what principle can President Obama now decline to intervene on behalf of other freedom fighters around the globe?
We don't know, because unlike George Bush, who took his case for war to the American people through a vote in the U.S. Congress (with 110 Democrats voting in favor), President Obama has unilaterally put our forces into harm's way based solely on his power as commander-in-chief. (Code Pink, call your office!) If he is relying upon the vote in the United Nations as his mandate for military action, he is establishing a new principle of diminished U.S. sovereignty. American forces can now be ordered into action by the president and the U.N. but without the U.S. Congress?
On most of the foreign- and security-policy issues he preened himself about -- the folly of deposing despots, closing the prison at Guantanamo, using military tribunals to try terrorists, and withdrawing from Iraq -- President Obama has reversed himself.
He has performed these reversals without explanation and without apology for his shrill condemnation of his predecessor. He condemned Bush's "ideology" but his own foreign policy seems to have amounted to marketing the image of himself as the first African-American president and the first Muslim-sympathetic president. Image making is easier than policymaking -- and when it came time for decisions, President Obama dissolved into incoherence.
--- Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2011 Creators Syndicate.
It is good to know that Obama and 90 percent of the democrats opposition to Bush was purely partisan and devoid of any true ideological principal.
Quote from: Tyr on March 21, 2011, 05:41:36 PM
I was expecting this to be as awesome and well televised as the Kosovo war was.
It is not.
Don't you listen to your Gill Scott Heron? The revolution will not be televised. :mad:
First Republicans bitch that Obama isn't doing anything to help the Libyans out. Now they bitch that he does. Jesus, what can the man do to please you fucks?
Oh and it looks like one of our jets went down over Libya.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2011, 07:05:43 AM
First Republicans bitch that Obama isn't doing anything to help the Libyans out. Now they bitch that he does. Jesus, what can the man do to please you fucks?
While Hansie is right, the Republicans also oppose Obama for the same reason. Conclusion = ideologues suck.
While most Republicans have been stunned by the ineptitude on display by the Obama administration (not me, I completely expected the idiot to botch it), I don't really hear much opposition from the GOP. Most complaints have been that Obama isn't doing enough, while being perplexed that Obama believed he needed the support of the Arab League and the UNSC, but not the US Congress.
The only outspoken opponent of note has been Senator Lugar, who is currently being primaried for being insufficiently conservative, not exactly a poster boy of the right.
Drawing a line between the Democrats reaction to Bush and the GOPs reaction to Obama is laughable, yet unsurprising from the partisan left.
If Bush had gone to war without congressional approval the democrats would have gone completely around he bend. Heck, even with congressional approval they went completely nuts, you're not going to see anything like that from the GOP, since they're not mentally unhinged like the left.
Here's something I wonder about:
If Gadhafi starts to lose and get pushed back onto his home turf, and the rebels start slaughtering members of the Gadhafa tribe (as we all know they inevitably will), will we start bombing the rebels? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2011, 07:45:36 AM
Here's something I wonder about:
If Gadhafi starts to lose and get pushed back onto his home turf, and the rebels start slaughtering members of the Gadhafa tribe (as we all know they inevitably will), will we start bombing the rebels? :hmm:
Hehe and this is exactly why we should not intervene in things like this. Now we would be responsible for all the reprisals and everything that will happen going forward.
QuoteDrawing a line between the Democrats reaction to Bush and the GOPs reaction to Obama is laughable, yet unsurprising from the partisan left.
I find it laughable you Republican partisans actually think you are that much better. You are either deluded or a liar. Given your posting history I go with the former.
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2011, 07:45:36 AM
Here's something I wonder about:
If Gadhafi starts to lose and get pushed back onto his home turf, and the rebels start slaughtering members of the Gadhafa tribe (as we all know they inevitably will), will we start bombing the rebels? :hmm:
Hush... we haven't thought that far ahead yet. When that time comes, I guess we switch sides and start bombing the Rebels?? :hmm:
Tough job being President. He was damned for not acting, now damned for acting.
I'm still trying to figure out if my 'get as many Libyans killed as possible' strategy is better served by bombing or not bombing. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2011, 08:02:26 AM
I'm still trying to figure out if my 'get as many Libyans killed as possible' strategy is better served by bombing or not bombing. :hmm:
Probably not bombing unless you want the thrill of being sorta responsible for their deaths. There might be massacres either way at the end but this should get us there faster.
No, it's much better for us if they're responsible for their own deaths. :smarty:
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2011, 07:45:36 AM
Here's something I wonder about:
If Gadhafi starts to lose and get pushed back onto his home turf, and the rebels start slaughtering members of the Gadhafa tribe (as we all know they inevitably will), will we start bombing the rebels? :hmm:
This is a question the liberal intervention crowd will have to deal with eventually. Unfortunately, it is not one they handled very well with in Bosnia or Kosovo. They may have a very clever plan to prevent such reprisals in Libya, but I doubt it.
This is the fundamental reason I am torn on this endeavour. I wish the average Libyan civilian to enjoy the same fruits of liberation as his Egyptian and Tunisian brothers. But I do not think civil wars are ever the straightforward dichotomy we wish them to be, and I am unconvinced that Libya was really a sufficient threat to international peace and security to warrant open-ended international military action.
It's a bit like Bosnia. We thought by sticking in blue helmets and slapping an arms embargo we would protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. In fact, nowadays I really believe that if we'd let the Muslims fight it out and buy weapons on the international markets, we would have far fewer gravestones sitting in the middle of Sarajevo and outside of Srebrenica. And, ironically, had the legitimate government of Bosnia been stronger in 1993, then it is likely that the Bosnian Croats would not have indulged in their shameful episode of separatism (and, thus, we would have fewer gravestones outside of Mostar).
If we really wanted to help the Libyan rebels, then maybe we should have, as someone else here or on Paradox suggested, suddenly have found that they were able to buy stingers and anti-tank missiles on the market ...
Quote from: Warspite on March 22, 2011, 08:16:20 AM
This is a question the liberal intervention crowd will have to deal with eventually. Unfortunately, it is not one they handled very well with in Bosnia or Kosovo. They may have a very clever plan to prevent such reprisals in Libya, but I doubt it.
This is the fundamental reason I am torn on this endeavour. I wish the average Libyan civilian to enjoy the same fruits of liberation as his Egyptian and Tunisian brothers. But I do not think civil wars are ever the straightforward dichotomy we wish them to be, and I am unconvinced that Libya was really a sufficient threat to international peace and security to warrant open-ended international military action.
It's a bit like Bosnia. We thought by sticking in blue helmets and slapping an arms embargo we would protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. In fact, nowadays I really believe that if we'd let the Muslims fight it out and buy weapons on the international markets, we would have far fewer gravestones sitting in the middle of Sarajevo and outside of Srebrenica.
It does not seem to bother them very much. I hardly ever hear anybody talk about the reprisals during those interventions and how we were enablers of them.
I really agree with that last paragraph. Our policies in Bosnia were so disastrous and counter-productive it is ridiculous and mostly a result of basic ignorance of what was really going on there. Simply the act of allowing the Croats and Muslims to arm themselves would have saved thousands of lives. I have no reason to believe we are any smarter than we were in those days and it is one of primary reasons I am against this kind of intervention.
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2011, 08:04:59 AM
No, it's much better for us if they're responsible for their own deaths. :smarty:
Not to mention cheaper and with much less blood on our hands.
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2011, 07:45:36 AM
Here's something I wonder about:
If Gadhafi starts to lose and get pushed back onto his home turf, and the rebels start slaughtering members of the Gadhafa tribe (as we all know they inevitably will), will we start bombing the rebels? :hmm:
Of course not. This is regime change, not a humanitarian intervention.
Meh, I don't have any problem with acknowledging that intervention is a messy process that often has undesirable results. But I think it is morally bankrupt to simply state that a *known* bad result should be tolerated because of a potential bad result that may happen if we act in some manner.
Valmy, your argument, for example, applies even moreso to Afghanistan. When we went in and helped the NA kick out the Taliban, we knew that the result would be unknown, and likely pretty bad (in an objective sense, compared to Western norms) in its own right. And guess what? It has been pretty bad. The kabul government is a corrupt mess, Afghanistan is still a mess, and I doubt anyone is particularly happy about the outcome at this point. Does this mean we should have just tolerated the Taliban in charge?
Hell, there were imcredible respisals against the Germans at the end of WW2. The Russians raped and slaughtered German civilians in staggering numbers, with the help of US and British arms, fuel, and munitions. Does that mean it was a mistake to help the Soviets against the Nazis?
I think holding up this standard of "Well, unless we can be sure that the result of intervention will be sunshine and happiness for all, then how can we possibly intervene? What if the people we intervene to help do nasty things???" Yeah, some of them ARE going to do nasty things. We should exercise whatever control intervention gives us to limit that as much as possible. If we really believe that the people we are helping are going to be as bad (or worse) than the people they are fighting, then we should not help them at all. But that is a specific evaluation based on specific circumstances. It is not an easy evaluation, by any means, especially when we don't necessarily understand what is going on - but generic "we should not intervene in messy situations because we cannot predict with certainty that the 'good' guys are all that good" is moral cowardice, IMO.
To be fair, neither case was an intervention. In both cases, we were at real war because they fucked with us directly enough.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 08:29:44 AM
Hell, there were imcredible respisals against the Germans at the end of WW2. The Russians raped and slaughtered German civilians in staggering numbers, with the help of US and British arms, fuel, and munitions. Does that mean it was a mistake to help the Soviets against the Nazis?
Of course. What are you, a commie-lover?
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 08:29:44 AM
Meh, I don't have any problem with acknowledging that intervention is a messy process that often has undesirable results. But I think it is morally bankrupt to simply state that a *known* bad result should be tolerated because of a potential bad result that may happen if we act in some manner.
Valmy, your argument, for example, applies even moreso to Afghanistan. When we went in and helped the NA kick out the Taliban, we knew that the result would be unknown, and likely pretty bad (in an objective sense, compared to Western norms) in its own right. And guess what? It has been pretty bad. The kabul government is a corrupt mess, Afghanistan is still a mess, and I doubt anyone is particularly happy about the outcome at this point. Does this mean we should have just tolerated the Taliban in charge?
Hell, there were imcredible respisals against the Germans at the end of WW2. The Russians raped and slaughtered German civilians in staggering numbers, with the help of US and British arms, fuel, and munitions. Does that mean it was a mistake to help the Soviets against the Nazis?
No, but we should have pushed east as hard as possible to occupy as much of Germany/Europe as we could and then let Stalin bitch about it. He wasn't in position to do anything about it.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 08:29:44 AM
Meh, I don't have any problem with acknowledging that intervention is a messy process that often has undesirable results. But I think it is morally bankrupt to simply state that a *known* bad result should be tolerated because of a potential bad result that may happen if we act in some manner.
Valmy, your argument, for example, applies even moreso to Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was an action taken under the UN Charter's terms of self defence; something, I would argue, even more fundamental to the international system than humanitarian intervention.
QuoteHell, there were imcredible respisals against the Germans at the end of WW2. The Russians raped and slaughtered German civilians in staggering numbers, with the help of US and British arms, fuel, and munitions. Does that mean it was a mistake to help the Soviets against the Nazis?
The war against Germany was not couched in humanitarian terms: it was a war of national survival, indeed of civilisation itself.
QuoteI think holding up this standard of "Well, unless we can be sure that the result of intervention will be sunshine and happiness for all, then how can we possibly intervene? ... but generic "we should not intervene in messy situations because we cannot predict with certainty that the 'good' guys are all that good" is moral cowardice, IMO.
I think we're saying, if you're going to violate the principle of state sovereignty in the name of impartial protection of civilians, you undo your own case when you pick a side in a civil war and then suddenly find they're committing murder and reprisal.
If you want to do a straightforward regime change, that's fine. But let's not pretend this isn't undoing a basic principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs that we decided was a good thing -
on the whole - over the last couple of hundred years.
Quote from: Warspite on March 22, 2011, 08:38:29 AM
If you want to do a straightforward regime change, that's fine. But let's not pretend this isn't undoing a basic principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs that we decided was a good thing - on the whole - over the last couple of hundred years.
:lmfao:
Yeah, we haven't messed around with regime change at all in the last couple of hundred years. With "we" being defined as the West in general.
Also, regime change is a means to an end, not an end itself. We decide to try for regime change because the regime in question is doing something we don't like - regime change in and of itself is never a motivation.
In the case of a nominally humanitarian intervention, we are trying to create regime change because presumably the regime in question is involved in humanitarian violations. The idea that we are doing regime change *instead of* humanitarian intervention is a bit spurious, to say the least. you are confusing what we are doing with why we are doing it.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 08:29:44 AM
Meh, I don't have any problem with acknowledging that intervention is a messy process that often has undesirable results. But I think it is morally bankrupt to simply state that a *known* bad result should be tolerated because of a potential bad result that may happen if we act in some manner.
It is not moral cowardice to reject butchering people and putting our people in danger to serve somebody else's nationalist agenda or when it has historically tended to make the situation worse. It is one thing to see others kill each other...it is another to do it ourselves.
QuoteValmy, your argument, for example, applies even moreso to Afghanistan. When we went in and helped the NA kick out the Taliban, we knew that the result would be unknown, and likely pretty bad (in an objective sense, compared to Western norms) in its own right. And guess what? It has been pretty bad. The kabul government is a corrupt mess, Afghanistan is still a mess, and I doubt anyone is particularly happy about the outcome at this point. Does this mean we should have just tolerated the Taliban in charge?
I guess I missed it when we invaded Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons. In the event it would have resulted in far less harm IMO if we had simply done that: defeated our Taliban enemy and left Afghanistan to the NA. Trying to create a new government and prop it up ourselves has done enormous damage to the entire region IMO out of a basic desire to do good. We simply did not know the place well enough.
QuoteHell, there were imcredible respisals against the Germans at the end of WW2. The Russians raped and slaughtered German civilians in staggering numbers, with the help of US and British arms, fuel, and munitions. Does that mean it was a mistake to help the Soviets against the Nazis?
I guess I missed it when we got involved in WWII for humanitarian purposes. Even in the event the brutal Russian reprisals on the Germans are pretty horrifying and embarrasing for the Allied cause. But the Germans were our enemies and we were committed to their destruction so not really comparable.
QuoteI think holding up this standard of "Well, unless we can be sure that the result of intervention will be sunshine and happiness for all, then how can we possibly intervene? What if the people we intervene to help do nasty things???" Yeah, some of them ARE going to do nasty things. We should exercise whatever control intervention gives us to limit that as much as possible. If we really believe that the people we are helping are going to be as bad (or worse) than the people they are fighting, then we should not help them at all. But that is a specific evaluation based on specific circumstances. It is not an easy evaluation, by any means, especially when we don't necessarily understand what is going on - but generic "we should not intervene in messy situations because we cannot predict with certainty that the 'good' guys are all that good" is moral cowardice, IMO.
Intevening because we must stop the bad guys with no exit strategy...knowing we are going to have to kill a bunch of people and create enemies...in support of people who we cannot trust is what I am rejecting. Going into parts of the world breaking shit like a bull in a china shop when we usually do not really understand the local dynamics is what I am rejecting. Not to mention the fact we are broke and have to do all this on borrowed money, and how is ruining our ability to act on the international stage in the future a good thing?
In any case it is not so much moral cowardice as coming to see most, if not all, of these interventions to be morally suspect despite our good intentions going in. The road to hell and all that.
Saw the footage of the wrecked F-15E. The dune coons were standing on wrecked shit, as usual. I was hoping one would stand and set off the Aim-120's they showed. No dice.
Arabs and mooselimbs and their propensity to stand on wrecked stuff: hilarious.
I don't buy into this idea that other "interventions" were for non-humanitarian reasons, and hence don't count.
WW2 for example, was most definitely sold as a humanitarian war. We cut off oil exports to Japan, which *directly* led to their attack on the basis of a aggressive Japanese war. We supplied Britain with war materials, which led directly to the German DOW on the basis of their war of aggression against France and Poland.
The list goes on and on - we cite humanitarian concerns in war after war after war. You cannot just blithely say "Oh, THAT was not a humanitarian war!" to dismiss any intervention where the result was that we end up supporting people who did terrible things. If so, I will just state "Oh, THIS isn't a humanitarian war!" either, and come up with some other "reason" why we need to take out the current nutjob up for removal.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 08:29:44 AM
Hell, there were imcredible respisals against the Germans at the end of WW2. The Russians raped and slaughtered German civilians in staggering numbers, with the help of US and British arms, fuel, and munitions. Does that mean it was a mistake to help the Soviets against the Nazis?
You, sir, are a monster.
Quote from: ValmyIntevening because we must stop the bad guys with no exit strategy...knowing we are going to have to kill a bunch of people and create enemies...in support of people who we cannot trust is what I am rejecting.
That statement right there could apply to WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War 2...the list goes on and on and on.
What does "no exit strategy" even mean? How do you know we have no exit strategy? What if the exit strategy is simply "We will stop bombing the Libyans when they stop attacking the rebels"? Isn't that an exit strategy?
Creating enemies? Again, that happens every single time you intervene anywhere. It also happens when you *don't* intervene, and when you kind of intervene.
"in support of people we cannot trust". Who can we trust? When have we even intervened in support of a people we can trust? The Brits? The list of people we can trust not to do something terrible is pretty damn short, and the only people on it are people who don't need anyone's help for the most part.
My point is that you are basically creating a criteria that cannot be met - it is essentially creating an standard where if we were to meet it, the US and the West would have to become almost completely isolationist. That is not necessarily an indefensible standard IMO - I actually think isolationism as a basis for forming an opinion on US/Western foreign policy has some moral and intellectual legs behind it.
But if you are going to walk down that path, then you have to reject a lot of interventions that most people tend to historically support. Like damn near every single war the US has gotten involved in after the Civil War. Because they have all been some version of us sticking our nose into other peoples business, when we could not at all predict the outcome, and when the outcome in one way or another has been pretty bad...except when compared to the potential outcome of doing nothing.
And there are plenty of historical examples of pretty horrific outcomes when we do nothing as well.
Quote from: Slargos on March 22, 2011, 09:18:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 08:29:44 AM
Hell, there were imcredible respisals against the Germans at the end of WW2. The Russians raped and slaughtered German civilians in staggering numbers, with the help of US and British arms, fuel, and munitions. Does that mean it was a mistake to help the Soviets against the Nazis?
You, sir, are a monster.
I wish I could have raped Eva Braun. In front of Hitler.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 22, 2011, 06:20:13 AM
It is good to know that Obama and 90 percent of the democrats opposition to Bush was purely partisan and devoid of any true ideological principal.
Those are not the only and mutually exclusive possibilities, thus the incoherence of the NRO op-ed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2011, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 22, 2011, 06:20:13 AM
It is good to know that Obama and 90 percent of the democrats opposition to Bush was purely partisan and devoid of any true ideological principal.
Those are not the only and mutually exclusive possibilities, thus the incoherence of the NRO op-ed.
While Hansy is just playing turn-about, he is pretty much exactly correct in regards to the dem opposition to Bush and his wars.
The funny thing is that he doesn't apparently realize that his own opposition to Obama being exactly the same (purely partisan and based on no ideological principles) just makes him look like as big a tool.
Of course the radical "Moveon" left's hysteria over Iraq was 90% partisan bullshit - that much is obvious by the fact that they are NOT all hysterical over Obama co-opting the Republican position on Iraq and Afghanistan almost completely.
I don't see how the right turning around and doing the exact same thing in an even MORE obvious manner is going to somehow make them look principled though.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 09:22:29 AM
That statement right there could apply to WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War 2...the list goes on and on and on.
That's not true for some of them, and others undermine your point. WW1/2 had an exit strategy, we knew it was a fight until the enemy capitulated. Seems like a clear enough exit strategy to me. GW1 had a clear exit strategy as well, we were going to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. For better or worse, we actually stuck to it.
As for Korea, Vietnam, and GW2, we in fact did not have an exit strategy. That's not exactly a list of examples that should make one jump head-first into the next exit-strategyless war. All those conflicts were very costly, and left a mess behind.
Quote
What does "no exit strategy" even mean? How do you know we have no exit strategy? What if the exit strategy is simply "We will stop bombing the Libyans when they stop attacking the rebels"? Isn't that an exit strategy?
That's no exit strategy, because that leaves a festering conflict. For better or worse, once the West intervened, the only possible exit from this mess requires Gaddafi's exit.
Meh, I will say it again. We shouldn't be involved in this. We're just going to walk into a shit storm, expend treasure and possibly blood, and get nothing (or worse than nothing) from it. And in the end, the Arabs will just hate us anyway.
Far better to make pious noises and provide some humanitarian aid.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2011, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 09:22:29 AM
That statement right there could apply to WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War 2...the list goes on and on and on.
That's not true for some of them, and others undermine your point. WW1/2 had an exit strategy, we knew it was a fight until the enemy capitulated. Seems like a clear enough exit strategy to me. GW1 had a clear exit strategy as well, we were going to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. For better or worse, we actually stuck to it.
There was more to the statement then the lack of exit strategy.
And WW1 did in fact leave a "festering conflict" that led to another even worse war a couple decades later.
WW2 left a festering conflict that led to several generations of proxy wars and the Cold War.
And WW2 and WW2 saw the US helping people "we cannot trust" who ended up engaging in horrible atrocities.
Quote
As for Korea, Vietnam, and GW2, we in fact did not have an exit strategy. That's not exactly a list of examples that should make one jump head-first into the next exit-strategyless war. All those conflicts were very costly, and left a mess behind.
Quote
What does "no exit strategy" even mean? How do you know we have no exit strategy? What if the exit strategy is simply "We will stop bombing the Libyans when they stop attacking the rebels"? Isn't that an exit strategy?
That's no exit strategy, because that leaves a festering conflict. For better or worse, once the West intervened, the only possible exit from this mess requires Gaddafi's exit.
It's not like his exit will guarantee that there wont be a festering conflict. And GF1 did in fact leave a festering conflict that led straight to GW2. This idea that the invocation of the words "exit strategy" somehow keeps whatever mess we are getting involved in from leave "festering conflicts" is false. All your examples of conflicts with "exit strategies" did in fact lead to festering conflicts.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 22, 2011, 09:36:12 AM
Meh, I will say it again. We shouldn't be involved in this. We're just going to walk into a shit storm, expend treasure and possibly blood, and get nothing (or worse than nothing) from it. And in the end, the Arabs will just hate us anyway.
Far better to make pious noises and provide some humanitarian aid.
I don't necessarily disagree with this particular situation.
On the one hand, we don't really know what is going to happen - there isn't any good indicators about what the rebels, if they win, are going to do that would make them better.
On the other hand, our investment is pretty cheap. We aren't going to be putting boots on the ground, there is no apparent need to try to do any nation building ala Iraq/Afghanistan. So far, it just amounts to some bombs and missile to help the rebels win. So it's not a huge investment.
So the risks are low, the costs are low, and the rewards are largely unknown.
However, in the context of the overall situation outside Libya, with waves of pro-democracy revolts and protests happening across the Middle East, I think there is an opportunity here that the West should not miss. The problem is that exploiting that opportunity is very, very difficult to do well - there is a real danger that we just screw the entire thing up by taking TOO active a role.
Maybe helping the rebels in Libya is a pretty "hands off" and low risk way of making a statement about where the West stands without over-committing and making it look like we are trying to force things?
Quote from: Warspite on March 22, 2011, 08:38:29 AM
I think we're saying, if you're going to violate the principle of state sovereignty in the name of impartial protection of civilians, you undo your own case when you pick a side in a civil war and then suddenly find they're committing murder and reprisal.
Interesting hypothetical, but not really applicable to Libya c. 2011.
State sovereignty is not at issue in Libya because the institutions of the state have disintegrated with many key components either joining the rebels outright or retreating into ambiguity. What is left is basically a extended Mafia-style family and their hired goons who are using force to systematically loot or destroy the remaining assets of the state on the ground.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 09:29:01 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2011, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 22, 2011, 06:20:13 AM
It is good to know that Obama and 90 percent of the democrats opposition to Bush was purely partisan and devoid of any true ideological principal.
Those are not the only and mutually exclusive possibilities, thus the incoherence of the NRO op-ed.
While Hansy is just playing turn-about, he is pretty much exactly correct in regards to the dem opposition to Bush and his wars.
The funny thing is that he doesn't apparently realize that his own opposition to Obama being exactly the same (purely partisan and based on no ideological principles) just makes him look like as big a tool.
Of course the radical "Moveon" left's hysteria over Iraq was 90% partisan bullshit - that much is obvious by the fact that they are NOT all hysterical over Obama co-opting the Republican position on Iraq and Afghanistan almost completely.
I don't see how the right turning around and doing the exact same thing in an even MORE obvious manner is going to somehow make them look principled though.
I disagree. As I already said, the way invading Iraq was sold by the Bush and Blaire governments was that it is to prevent Saddam from finishing his WMD programme - which turned out to be a lie (not just falsehood, but a lie).
The "he was also bad to his own people in the past" was never used as a main cause for the invasion, especially as it would not have been enough - just as it wouldn't have been enough if we wanted to invade Libya two months ago in order to depose Qaddafi for his past crimes.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 09:48:24 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 22, 2011, 09:36:12 AM
Meh, I will say it again. We shouldn't be involved in this. We're just going to walk into a shit storm, expend treasure and possibly blood, and get nothing (or worse than nothing) from it. And in the end, the Arabs will just hate us anyway.
Far better to make pious noises and provide some humanitarian aid.
I don't necessarily disagree with this particular situation.
On the one hand, we don't really know what is going to happen - there isn't any good indicators about what the rebels, if they win, are going to do that would make them better.
On the other hand, our investment is pretty cheap. We aren't going to be putting boots on the ground, there is no apparent need to try to do any nation building ala Iraq/Afghanistan. So far, it just amounts to some bombs and missile to help the rebels win. So it's not a huge investment.
So the risks are low, the costs are low, and the rewards are largely unknown.
However, in the context of the overall situation outside Libya, with waves of pro-democracy revolts and protests happening across the Middle East, I think there is an opportunity here that the West should not miss. The problem is that exploiting that opportunity is very, very difficult to do well - there is a real danger that we just screw the entire thing up by taking TOO active a role.
Maybe helping the rebels in Libya is a pretty "hands off" and low risk way of making a statement about where the West stands without over-committing and making it look like we are trying to force things?
I know it's an unpopular position to take, but notwithstanding the cost-benefit analysis, the intervention may also be a good idea because preventing the mass slaughter of a civilian populace at the hands of a madman is simply the right thing to do.
Even if the said populace may turn out to be a bunch of ungrateful pricks in the end.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 09:48:24 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 22, 2011, 09:36:12 AM
Meh, I will say it again. We shouldn't be involved in this. We're just going to walk into a shit storm, expend treasure and possibly blood, and get nothing (or worse than nothing) from it. And in the end, the Arabs will just hate us anyway.
Far better to make pious noises and provide some humanitarian aid.
I don't necessarily disagree with this particular situation.
On the one hand, we don't really know what is going to happen - there isn't any good indicators about what the rebels, if they win, are going to do that would make them better.
On the other hand, our investment is pretty cheap. We aren't going to be putting boots on the ground, there is no apparent need to try to do any nation building ala Iraq/Afghanistan. So far, it just amounts to some bombs and missile to help the rebels win. So it's not a huge investment.
So the risks are low, the costs are low, and the rewards are largely unknown.
However, in the context of the overall situation outside Libya, with waves of pro-democracy revolts and protests happening across the Middle East, I think there is an opportunity here that the West should not miss. The problem is that exploiting that opportunity is very, very difficult to do well - there is a real danger that we just screw the entire thing up by taking TOO active a role.
Maybe helping the rebels in Libya is a pretty "hands off" and low risk way of making a statement about where the West stands without over-committing and making it look like we are trying to force things?
I know it's an unpopular position to take, but notwithstanding the cost-benefit analysis, the intervention may also be a good idea because preventing the mass slaughter of a civilian populace at the hands of a madman is simply the right thing to do.
Even if the said populace may turn out to be a bunch of ungrateful pricks in the end.
The irony of your two posts is ossum.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2011, 09:54:16 AM
I disagree. As I already said, the way invading Iraq was sold by the Bush and Blaire governments was that it is to prevent Saddam from finishing his WMD programme - which turned out to be a lie (not just falsehood, but a lie).
The actual existence of WMDs on the ground being the sole and only reason for the war only became the Pravda of the left after it became clear that there weren't any. Prior to that, it was largely ignored as a reason because everyone, including the left, largely assumed they were there.
Quote
The "he was also bad to his own people in the past" was never used as a main cause for the invasion, especially as it would not have been enough - just as it wouldn't have been enough if we wanted to invade Libya two months ago in order to depose Qaddafi for his past crimes.
Of course it was used as one of several reasons. It was not more the "main" reason than the idea that Saddam was sitting on stockpiles of WMDs *right now* was the main reason. You have this weird need to grossly over-simplify things - on the one hand, to claim that there was only one reason (which turned out to be incorrect), and then on the other hand to dismiss reasons that are actually valid.
Hmmm, almost like your motivation is not to really understand what was going on, but rather to just figure out how to make sure you can defend your "partisan" position.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 09:48:24 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 22, 2011, 09:36:12 AM
Meh, I will say it again. We shouldn't be involved in this. We're just going to walk into a shit storm, expend treasure and possibly blood, and get nothing (or worse than nothing) from it. And in the end, the Arabs will just hate us anyway.
Far better to make pious noises and provide some humanitarian aid.
I don't necessarily disagree with this particular situation.
On the one hand, we don't really know what is going to happen - there isn't any good indicators about what the rebels, if they win, are going to do that would make them better.
On the other hand, our investment is pretty cheap. We aren't going to be putting boots on the ground, there is no apparent need to try to do any nation building ala Iraq/Afghanistan. So far, it just amounts to some bombs and missile to help the rebels win. So it's not a huge investment.
So the risks are low, the costs are low, and the rewards are largely unknown.
However, in the context of the overall situation outside Libya, with waves of pro-democracy revolts and protests happening across the Middle East, I think there is an opportunity here that the West should not miss. The problem is that exploiting that opportunity is very, very difficult to do well - there is a real danger that we just screw the entire thing up by taking TOO active a role.
Maybe helping the rebels in Libya is a pretty "hands off" and low risk way of making a statement about where the West stands without over-committing and making it look like we are trying to force things?
The fear is that, like the parable of the camel's nose and the bedouin's tent, getting involved this much will lead to more fulsome involvement down the road - for example, if in spite of these air attacks, the rebels nonetheless appear likely to lose. Will the UN simply shrug its collective shoulders and go home?
This creeping involvement could turn "hands off" and "low risk" into "hands on" and "high risk".
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2011, 10:05:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 09:48:24 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 22, 2011, 09:36:12 AM
Meh, I will say it again. We shouldn't be involved in this. We're just going to walk into a shit storm, expend treasure and possibly blood, and get nothing (or worse than nothing) from it. And in the end, the Arabs will just hate us anyway.
Far better to make pious noises and provide some humanitarian aid.
I don't necessarily disagree with this particular situation.
On the one hand, we don't really know what is going to happen - there isn't any good indicators about what the rebels, if they win, are going to do that would make them better.
On the other hand, our investment is pretty cheap. We aren't going to be putting boots on the ground, there is no apparent need to try to do any nation building ala Iraq/Afghanistan. So far, it just amounts to some bombs and missile to help the rebels win. So it's not a huge investment.
So the risks are low, the costs are low, and the rewards are largely unknown.
However, in the context of the overall situation outside Libya, with waves of pro-democracy revolts and protests happening across the Middle East, I think there is an opportunity here that the West should not miss. The problem is that exploiting that opportunity is very, very difficult to do well - there is a real danger that we just screw the entire thing up by taking TOO active a role.
Maybe helping the rebels in Libya is a pretty "hands off" and low risk way of making a statement about where the West stands without over-committing and making it look like we are trying to force things?
The fear is that, like the parable of the camel's nose and the bedouin's tent, getting involved this much will lead to more fulsome involvement down the road - for example, if in spite of these air attacks, the rebels nonetheless appear likely to lose. Will the UN simply shrug its collective shoulders and go home?
This creeping involvement could turn "hands off" and "low risk" into "hands on" and "high risk".
True enough. It is hard (impossible?) to back off once you start. Especially against such a low rent tool as Qadafi. On the other hand, it seems like it is pretty trivial to make sure that he loses. His military forces are paltry, and he does not appear to have great support that isn't paid for - and that kind of support tends to disappear once it becomes clear that you aren't going to get to spend all your time shooting up poorly armed civilians, and are going to be getting your ass handed to you by forces well beyond your ability to oppose in any fashion.
But you certainly do have a point - you never know once you get involved where it is going to end up.
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2011, 10:05:53 AM
The fear is that, like the parable of the camel's nose and the bedouin's tent, getting involved this much will lead to more fulsome involvement down the road - for example, if in spite of these air attacks, the rebels nonetheless appear likely to lose. Will the UN simply shrug its collective shoulders and go home?
This creeping involvement could turn "hands off" and "low risk" into "hands on" and "high risk".
I expect this mission creep to happen. When I looked at it from the start it just seems logical. I don't really like it but I can understand that once we take a side we will be in the mix. I just hope that being in the mix is more like the U.S. limiting its involvement to mainly helping the new government get set up. That kind of thing. But it could be a lot more, especially if this goes on for a while. We've helped "kick the hornet's nest" and consequently we'll own some of how things progress. And we may want to own some, in the way of helping shape the outcome and new government - if Gaddafi is even ousted.
I am a bit annoyed at the Obama bashing, some of which is gratuitously political, on both the right and left. But nothing new - we lived with it with Bush for eight years. I'm mostly supportive of Obama, even if I have misgivings at how he may have been more dragged into this, if he was. Doesn't seem like he led. But getting the Arab League to sign off, (though they're backtracking now - duh), to get nations to abstain in the UN rather than veto the action, seems like some strong back channel discussions were done. No idea if that was the US doing or French and UK, but likely the latter given those nation's strong desire to get into this anyway.
I do hope that the US can back away from an active roll as much as possible. Qadafi is kind of pathetic, and the regional powers should be more than capable of making his regime non-sustainable.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 10:20:15 AM
I do hope that the US can back away from an active roll as much as possible. Qadafi is kind of pathetic, and the regional powers should be more than capable of making his regime non-sustainable.
One sub is already being withdrawn. I'm assuming it is the USS Florida.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 10:04:29 AM
[The actual existence of WMDs on the ground being the sole and only reason for the war only became the Pravda of the left after it became clear that there weren't any. Prior to that, it was largely ignored as a reason because everyone, including the left, largely assumed they were there.
It wasn't ignored by the congressional authorization of force that Hansie keeps talking about. That authorization was explicitly based on the alleged findings of WMD risk and a Presidential declaration that Iraq was not complying with the UN enforcement mechanisms.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 09:14:08 AM
I don't buy into this idea that other "interventions" were for non-humanitarian reasons, and hence don't count.
WW2 for example, was most definitely sold as a humanitarian war.
World War Two began in Europe because German armed forces cross the border with Poland uninvited, committing the international sin of territorial aggression. The UK and France went to war to protect the territorial integrity of Poland, not the well-being of Polish civilians. The latter may be a pleasant side-effect of the former, but no Cabinet minute nor Commons debate cites humanitarian intervention. They do, however, talk about the vile Hun trying to redraw the map of Europe by violence again. That was the crime that draw the UK and France into war. Not the ghettoisation of Jews.
QuoteWe cut off oil exports to Japan, which *directly* led to their attack on the basis of a aggressive Japanese war.
Yes, the Japanese rampage in China was an example of territorial expansionism and a crime against the peace of nations; Nanking disgusted the public, but the crime to justify the war was against the peace of nations.
[quoteWe supplied Britain with war materials, which led directly to the German DOW on the basis of their war of aggression against France and Poland.[/quote]
Again, because Germany was a threat to the peace of nations; had the Nazis not touched a single Jew, homosexual or Slav, their crime of international aggression would still have compelled action.
QuoteThe list goes on and on - we cite humanitarian concerns in war after war after war. You cannot just blithely say "Oh, THAT was not a humanitarian war!" to dismiss any intervention where the result was that we end up supporting people who did terrible things. If so, I will just state "Oh, THIS isn't a humanitarian war!" either, and come up with some other "reason" why we need to take out the current nutjob up for removal.
Aside from Somalia (intervening where there was no state), Kosovo and now Libya, I cannot think of any military interventions primarily justified on the basis of humanitarian concerns, as opposed to 'international peace and security' (even Kosovo was undertaken to a great degree because of the regionally destabilising effect it was having on neighbouring states like Macedonia). Instead, we have plenty of counter-examples where a weaker foe than Libya has set off a humanitarian emergency and then nothing has been done.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 10:20:15 AM
I do hope that the US can back away from an active roll as much as possible. Qadafi is kind of pathetic, and the regional powers should be more than capable of making his regime non-sustainable.
You are right, but I think we're going to see a very inward-looking Egypt for some time.
Don't worry, though; Sarkozy needs his Khaki election, so I'm sure he'll commit until Gadaffi is gone, even if no one else does. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2011, 10:26:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 10:04:29 AM
[The actual existence of WMDs on the ground being the sole and only reason for the war only became the Pravda of the left after it became clear that there weren't any. Prior to that, it was largely ignored as a reason because everyone, including the left, largely assumed they were there.
It wasn't ignored by the congressional authorization of force that Hansie keeps talking about. That authorization was explicitly based on the alleged findings of WMD risk and a Presidential declaration that Iraq was not complying with the UN enforcement mechanisms.
WMD risk extends beyond whether he has any RIGHT NOW, and there was no question that he was not complying with UN enforcement mechanisms until it was too late.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2011, 10:26:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 10:04:29 AM
[The actual existence of WMDs on the ground being the sole and only reason for the war only became the Pravda of the left after it became clear that there weren't any. Prior to that, it was largely ignored as a reason because everyone, including the left, largely assumed they were there.
It wasn't ignored by the congressional authorization of force that Hansie keeps talking about. That authorization was explicitly based on the alleged findings of WMD risk and a Presidential declaration that Iraq was not complying with the UN enforcement mechanisms.
WMD risk extends beyond whether he has any RIGHT NOW, and there was no question that he was not complying with UN enforcement mechanisms until it was too late.
I recall the reasons offered for the war were that Saddam was a direct threat to regional and international peace and security because of his failure to comply with a UN Security Council mandated inspections regime.
The debate, and ultimate reason for the failure of a second resolution, was over whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq was in material breach. This was the crux of the disagreement: the US and UK believed the inspections regime had failed and that failure to comply was reason for war. France and Germany argued that more time was needed; though there was non-compliance, this in their view was not a sufficient breach to authorise action. I suspect Russia and China would not have authorised action short of Saddam Hussein launching warheads filled with sarin on Amman and Riyadh.
To be fair to the "lefties", whose stance on the war I opposed, many of them were in fact claiming that they didn't believe Saddam had weapons stocks.
Maybe my memory has let me down, but this is how I remember it.
There was certainly plenty of lefties who did not buy the dog and pony show put on by Powell. But the idea that the case for war was solely based on that dog and pony show is, IMO, post-hoc revisionism. If Saddam had had piles of WMDs sitting around, then some OTHER reason for the war (there were several) would be trotted out as THE reason, which turned out to not be the case.
The same thing will happen with Libya - whatever the actual reasons to act (which are never simple) afterwards some reason that is the easiest to attack will be selected as THE reason, and Obama will be blasted for that.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 10:46:38 AM
There was certainly plenty of lefties who did not buy the dog and pony show put on by Powell. But the idea that the case for war was solely based on that dog and pony show is, IMO, post-hoc revisionism. If Saddam had had piles of WMDs sitting around, then some OTHER reason for the war (there were several) would be trotted out as THE reason, which turned out to not be the case.
The same thing will happen with Libya - whatever the actual reasons to act (which are never simple) afterwards some reason that is the easiest to attack will be selected as THE reason, and Obama will be blasted for that.
Ok, but President Bush was pretty forthright in his State of the Union address in 2002. The below is an excerpt, starting with the first mention of the word "Iraq":
"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our Nation's security."
While he starts of by stressing how cruel the regime is, in terms of the threat to the US and its allies - and the peace of the world - it is all terrorism and WMD.
Lol, Libya state media is accusing Denmark of being behind the bombing of Gaddafi's compound Tripoli. They say that the whole bombing campaign is part of Denmark's long war against muslims, starting with the Muhammad drawings.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi279.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fkk131%2FHEIPED1974%2Fa-1.jpg&hash=fb56e8c8e731aff6240ca9ae3571d377fcb7dd22)
Lets start a new Crusade... :menace:
Quote from: Warspite on March 22, 2011, 10:53:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 10:46:38 AM
There was certainly plenty of lefties who did not buy the dog and pony show put on by Powell. But the idea that the case for war was solely based on that dog and pony show is, IMO, post-hoc revisionism. If Saddam had had piles of WMDs sitting around, then some OTHER reason for the war (there were several) would be trotted out as THE reason, which turned out to not be the case.
The same thing will happen with Libya - whatever the actual reasons to act (which are never simple) afterwards some reason that is the easiest to attack will be selected as THE reason, and Obama will be blasted for that.
Ok, but President Bush was pretty forthright in his State of the Union address in 2002. The below is an excerpt, starting with the first mention of the word "Iraq":
"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our Nation's security."
While he starts of by stressing how cruel the regime is, in terms of the threat to the US and its allies - and the peace of the world - it is all terrorism and WMD.
The exerpt you quoted is all about the possibility that Saddam could be a danger in the future. It is true he used poision gas on people and monkeyed with inspectors.
Yeah, that entire excerpt supports my point more than the claim that the entire war was all about the existence of WMDs at that time.
It was even weird at the time - people looked at the words spoken, and somehow came up with entirely different meanings for them.
This little blurb I think, makes a very good case for war against Saddam. In a nutshell, it boils down to:
1. He has proven that he is willing to use WMDs - something beyond the pale in international politics.
2. He has refused to abide by the terms that ended the previous war, said terms being explicitly designed to prevent him from developing WMDs again. He has "something to hide".
3. He has shown himself to be an enemy of the US and our allies, and is willing to ally himself with terrorists.
4. Given the recent events (9/11) the US is no longer willing to sit back and wait for a threat like this to manifest itself directly.
It isn't a rock solid case - I can certainly understand all kinds of arguments against it. But the idea that this all sums up to "ZOMG Iraq has some old cans of nerve agent he didn't get rid of! Lets invade!" is ludicrous.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 11:22:02 AM
2. He has refused to abide by the terms that ended the previous war, said terms being explicitly designed to prevent him from developing WMDs again. He has "something to hide".
It's the latter claim that was in error and it was a key basis for securing support for the war. Otherwise there would have been no urgency for immediate action.
I do think the Bush administration honestly believed that the WMDs were there, however. Saddam succeeded in fooling the outside world that he was further advanced than he really was and that success proved costly to him.
At the front line...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F99Cse.jpg&hash=46a817851d4da7c9a471b41c3fdbd1cd45c4e5e2)
:lol:
Awesome. I wonder what the reporter to combatant ratio is over there.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 22, 2011, 10:57:48 AM
Lol, Libya state media is accusing Denmark of being behind the bombing of Gaddafi's compound Tripoli. They say that the whole bombing campaign is part of Denmark's long war against muslims, starting with the Muhammad drawings.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi279.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fkk131%2FHEIPED1974%2Fa-1.jpg&hash=fb56e8c8e731aff6240ca9ae3571d377fcb7dd22)
Lets start a new Crusade... :menace:
There you go, you certainly have the flag for it!
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2011, 11:54:39 AM
Awesome. I wonder what the reporter to combatant ratio is over there.
Posers or real front line fighter?, I suspect that the ratio for front line fighter is very low, most likely 1:1...
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
the intervention may also be a good idea because preventing the mass slaughter of a civilian populace at the hands of a madman is simply the right thing to do.
Even if the said populace may turn out to be a bunch of ungrateful pricks in the end.
:yes:
I haven't found any acceptable news sources for this little war. Any recommendations?
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2011, 09:29:01 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2011, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 22, 2011, 06:20:13 AM
It is good to know that Obama and 90 percent of the democrats opposition to Bush was purely partisan and devoid of any true ideological principal.
Those are not the only and mutually exclusive possibilities, thus the incoherence of the NRO op-ed.
While Hansy is just playing turn-about, he is pretty much exactly correct in regards to the dem opposition to Bush and his wars.
The funny thing is that he doesn't apparently realize that his own opposition to Obama being exactly the same (purely partisan and based on no ideological principles) just makes him look like as big a tool.
Of course the radical "Moveon" left's hysteria over Iraq was 90% partisan bullshit - that much is obvious by the fact that they are NOT all hysterical over Obama co-opting the Republican position on Iraq and Afghanistan almost completely.
I don't see how the right turning around and doing the exact same thing in an even MORE obvious manner is going to somehow make them look principled though.
I don't think Hans say he was opposed, did he? And I don't see a majority of the right rising in opposition. I think many have disagreements with how Obama went about it, and how that seems to conflict with strong statements he made in the past about presidential powers, intervention, etc.
I can't speak for the rest of the Right-- no doubt there are some political opportunists who criticized Obama's inaction and will soon criticize him for taking action. But I don't buy that you have to support intervention in Libya today if you supported the Iraq war in 2003.
I opposed intervention in Libya because it does not seem to serve our national interest & is going to cost a lot of money we don't have & possibly some of our own guys' lives. But now that we're involved I think we need to see our mission through to a successful conclusion-- if it's necessary to wipe out Khadaffy & end his regime, let's hurry up & do it. And FWIW, I don't believe Obama was acting outside his authority (though I'd like him to tell us what changed his mind on the matter).
This strikes me as a terrible idea. If you don't have a rebel force with some sort of centralized leadership, how do you expect a good outcome from this?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 22, 2011, 03:24:12 PM
This strikes me as a terrible idea. If you don't have a rebel force with some sort of centralized leadership, how do you expect a good outcome from this?
After weeks of bleating that Qaddafi had to step down, I don't see how we had a choice.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
I don't think Hans say he was opposed, did he? And I don't see a majority of the right rising in opposition. I think many have disagreements with how Obama went about it, and how that seems to conflict with strong statements he made in the past about presidential powers, intervention, etc.
I can't speak for the rest of the Right-- no doubt there are some political opportunists who criticized Obama's inaction and will soon criticize him for taking action. But I don't buy that you have to support intervention in Libya today if you supported the Iraq war in 2003.
I opposed intervention in Libya because it does not seem to serve our national interest & is going to cost a lot of money we don't have & possibly some of our own guys' lives. But now that we're involved I think we need to see our mission through to a successful conclusion-- if it's necessary to wipe out Khadaffy & end his regime, let's hurry up & do it. And FWIW, I don't believe Obama was acting outside his authority (though I'd like him to tell us what changed his mind on the matter).
I wouldn't say it's being treated the same way as the Iraq war- hell, I wouldn't even say it's being treated the same way consistently, and that's a large part of the problem.
There are plenty of significant differences between this and Iraq, but Obama's rhetoric on the issue has been so wishy-washy and aimless that it could be interpreted almost exactly like Bush's nearly-equally-ambivalent commentary on Saddam Hussein and the conditions in Iraq.
The vibe I've been getting from Big-O is less, "here's the problem, and here's what we're going to do about it," and more, "yeah, there's a problem, so I'm going to go with a cookie-cutter response because I don't know what else to do."
Quote from: alfred russel on March 22, 2011, 03:24:12 PM
This strikes me as a terrible idea. If you don't have a rebel force with some sort of centralized leadership, how do you expect a good outcome from this?
I suspect that some people simply judge Colonel Loony being gone is a good outcome.
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2011, 03:31:57 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 22, 2011, 03:24:12 PM
This strikes me as a terrible idea. If you don't have a rebel force with some sort of centralized leadership, how do you expect a good outcome from this?
I suspect that some people simply judge Colonel Loony being gone is a good outcome.
Or, for that matter, "stopping mass slaughter of civilians".
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2011, 03:31:57 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 22, 2011, 03:24:12 PM
This strikes me as a terrible idea. If you don't have a rebel force with some sort of centralized leadership, how do you expect a good outcome from this?
I suspect that some people simply judge Colonel Loony being gone is a good outcome.
There is a long list of countries in Africa and the Middle East that are worse off than Libya under Colonel Loony. Quasi stability with bad government is better than a civil war.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 22, 2011, 03:43:30 PM
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2011, 03:31:57 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 22, 2011, 03:24:12 PM
This strikes me as a terrible idea. If you don't have a rebel force with some sort of centralized leadership, how do you expect a good outcome from this?
I suspect that some people simply judge Colonel Loony being gone is a good outcome.
There is a long list of countries in Africa and the Middle East that are worse off than Libya under Colonel Loony. Quasi stability with bad government is better than a civil war.
What "quasi stability"? Are we living in the same reality? :huh:
Some people here (you included) are acting as if the West was invading a stable if corrupt Libya to impose a regime change. This is clearly not the case.
This war bores me now.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2011, 03:45:58 PM
What "quasi stability"? Are we living in the same reality? :huh:
Some people here (you included) are acting as if the West was invading a stable if corrupt Libya to impose a regime change. This is clearly not the case.
Clearly not at the moment, there is a civil war going on. :rolleyes:
But until recently it was quasi stable. The only way to get back to quasi stability is for one side to have a clear winner, and how are you going to get that with the rebels when they don't seem to have anything more than goofballs looking to get on TV while shooting their guns in the air?
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2011, 03:51:02 PM
This war bores me now.
:rolleyes: Americans don't realize how good they got it. People in other parts of the world have at most one war, we've got three wars to choose from. Be grateful for what you have.
I second Martinus' point here. Several cabinet ministers and the UN delegation declared for the rebels. The Central Bank governor went incognito for a while before resurfacing to say he was prepared to cooperate with the international sanctions regime. Meanwhile, on the other side, Qadaffi himself has no official government position; nor IIRC does any member of his family. There is no quasi stability here; there is an organized crime family using violence and intimidation to assert control over a state.
Doing the right thing is often a terrible idea.
Quote from: Warspite on March 22, 2011, 08:16:20 AM
If we really wanted to help the Libyan rebels, then maybe we should have, as someone else here or on Paradox suggested, suddenly have found that they were able to buy stingers and anti-tank missiles on the market ...
It's interesting that ensuring this was highlighed by Malcolm Rifkind as a good policy for Libya and an absolute failure for Bosnia.
QuoteState sovereignty is not at issue in Libya because the institutions of the state have disintegrated with many key components either joining the rebels outright or retreating into ambiguity. What is left is basically a extended Mafia-style family and their hired goons who are using force to systematically loot or destroy the remaining assets of the state on the ground.
Well to be fair a mafia style family using force to loot the assets of the state describe a whole number of Middle Eastern regimes not in a state of collapse and describe Libya prior to the current conflict. That's not me making a 'why not Saudi Arabia' comment, I don't buy that argment.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2011, 10:26:27 AM
It wasn't ignored by the congressional authorization of force that Hansie keeps talking about. That authorization was explicitly based on the alleged findings of WMD risk and a Presidential declaration that Iraq was not complying with the UN enforcement mechanisms.
That's a very lawyerly turn of phrase.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2011, 04:01:06 PM
I second Martinus' point here. Several cabinet ministers and the UN delegation declared for the rebels. The Central Bank governor went incognito for a while before resurfacing to say he was prepared to cooperate with the international sanctions regime. Meanwhile, on the other side, Qadaffi himself has no official government position; nor IIRC does any member of his family. There is no quasi stability here; there is an organized crime family using violence and intimidation to assert control over a state.
He's a colonel, which is a government position. Doesn't he also hold some sort of title like 'Guide of the Revolution' or something? I don't think it's appropriate to project your ideas on government structure on a country with no rule of law.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 22, 2011, 03:27:32 PM
There are plenty of significant differences between this and Iraq, but Obama's rhetoric on the issue has been so wishy-washy and aimless that it could be interpreted almost exactly like Bush's nearly-equally-ambivalent commentary on Saddam Hussein and the conditions in Iraq.
The vibe I've been getting from Big-O is less, "here's the problem, and here's what we're going to do about it," and more, "yeah, there's a problem, so I'm going to go with a cookie-cutter response because I don't know what else to do."
I'm still trying to get my head around what is going on. I was dead wrong late last week when I said I thought the administration was spouting empty rhetoric & hoping nothing would come of it. One thing that strikes me about the administration is how uncoordinated everyone seems to be. You hear widely divergent statements coming from Dept. of State, Dept. of Defense, the press secretary, Obama himself, etc., etc. I've never seen an administration so lacking in coordination when it comes to foreign policy.
I'm generally pro-Obama, but I agree with you. They don't have anything close to the media control that the last administration seemed to have (reports of Obama telling congressional leaders that there'd be no raids by U.S. aircraft on Libya -- followed by B-2 raids a day later), and that's a significant failure.
OPSEC sucks with this operation. The Air Force needs to accidentally shoot a couple of reporters.
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'Allah for Libya, Freedom and Snickers Bars!'QuoteLibya Dispatch: Rebel Twinkies fuel the struggle
By Abu Ray March 22, 2011 at 12:56 PM Share
An alternative use for ammo
Napoleon famously said an army marches on its stomach, and in the case of Libya's rebel forces, that would be tuna sandwiches, fava beans and a lot of junk food.
As Western air strikes are restarting once thoroughly defeated rebel advance, the once weirdly successful aspect of their rag tag forces should be gearing up again -- their food supply lines.
Like everything else about the uprising in eastern Libya seeking to challenge Moammar Gadhafi's four decade hammerlock on power, the fighters' food supply was an ad hoc affair of entreprising individuals and local charities with official sanction that somehow seemed to work -- even when nothing else really did.
Rebel checkpoints always featured cases of bottled water, juice, piles of bread and plenty of junk food such as biscuits and packaged cupcakes that fighters can grab and throw into their pick up truck before taking off for the front.
"We never run short of food, we have good kids from Benghazi who come and bring it down to us," said Mohammed Selim, 23, as he cleaned up the empty boxes of Twinkies, cookies and sugary juice drinks piled outside a rebel checkpoint in the oil refinery town of Ras Lanouf, two weeks ago before they were driven out.
As the furthest point of their advance, the rebel forces clustered around Ras Lanouf for almost week, giving birth to the most advanced food distribution point along the front.
According to the rebels, the food comes to the checkpoints in regular deliveries, partly organized by the provisional council running the eastern cities, but also in a large part due to efforts by individuals.
Many people who don't want to actually pick up a gun and join the fighting, instead go to nearby towns, stock up on staples like bread and tuna -- as well as plenty of junk food -- and deliver them to checkpoints.
"Now we are eating Snickers bars, before we could only just look at them in the store," said Ayman Ahmed, a 23-year-old volunteer for the rebel forces who together with a group of friends took over the abandoned house of a oil refinery worker in the Ras Lanouf residential area.
"We are really experiencing freedom now," he said, in a living room filled with discarded juice boxes and wrappers from packaged sweet cakes.
Before the rebels were driven out, the center of their food network in Ras Lanouf town was the aluminum and glass guard house at the entrance to the neat houses and villas of the oil complex.
No one ever found the key, so to get in and out, those passing out the food had to climb through the windows they had forced open.
Inside the kiosk was filled with stacks of biscuits, boxes of juice and milk and two enormous stainless steel dispensers brewing tea for the troops.
"We are volunteers who came here and took on the responsibility of handing out the food while others pick up weapons and stand guard outside," said Walid Abu Hajara, a cheerful 27-year-old from Benghazi, who has been managing the makeshift kitchen for the last three days.
Together with Selim and other volunteers they made fava bean sandwiches for the fighters' breakfast and in the afternoon stuffed tuna into the loaves for lunch.
"We have a problem with the supply of bread," admitted Abu Hajara, referring to the crunchy short-baguette style Libyan bread that is the staple of any meal. "We have people that we call when we run low -- we even call members of the council."
One of his fellow workers shushed him, told him not to admit to the journalist about any shortcomings and only say that everything was fine.
Less than half an hour later, though, the bread appears and fighters can be seen pocketing several loaves each, along with wedges of processed cheese.
With the lack of logistical organization of the rebels' regular armed forces and the flood of volunteers to the front, this largely charitable food drive is vital to keeping rebel fighters functioning.
There are also little in the way of grocery stores in the remote towns strung along the desert coastal road of Libya's barren center.
To a large extent, the informal food network grew out of the flood of charitable endeavors that sprang out of the euphoria of the Feb. 17 uprising against Qadhafi.
Longstanding eastern Libyan traditions of hospitality and generosity have blossomed with the successful throwing off of central government control and everywhere people are handing out food.
Outside Benghazi's courthouse, where day and night there is some sort of gathering commemorating the demonstrations that faced down the police more than a month ago, food is regularly provided.
Elsewhere in the city, kitchens prepare a steady supply of meals for the poor and needy.
At a gas station on the road to the front, a man handed out packets of dates stamped "a gift from Jalo for the Feb. 17 revolution," referring to desert town far to the south.
At another stop, a local patiently gives out prepared sacks of food to passing motorists, even journalists, containing tuna sandwiches, an apple and banana and a twinkie.
"We eat whenever people bring us food or we go to the checkpoints," said Ali Youssef, a tall thin 22-year-old fighter who's been living on the front for weeks. "The food is, well, war food, but it's okay," he said with tentative smile.
His favorite dish is a Libyan pasta and tomato sauce specialty, and surprisingly hot cooked meals are not a rarity for most soldiers. Many say they eat chicken or lamb at least once day, once again thanks to local efforts.
At the Brega Hospital, where doctors wait for the latest dead and wounded from the fighting at Ras Lanouf, about 60 miles (100 kilometers) west on the coastal road, a young man in a scout uniform hands out meals.
The foil boxes contain rice and a fairly substantial piece of beef supplemented with more Libyan loaves.
"My mother and my aunts, all of us worked on it together and we distribute it to the hospital, to the revolutionaries and others," said Essam al-Hamali, as he handed out the meals to waiting doctors in blue scrubs.
He said today he and his family and fellow scouts put together about 700 meals.
Other days, fighters say people just show up with aluminum pots filled with rice or pasta topped with meat or chicken.
For Muftah Momin, a young fighter sharing the abandoned oil workers house with his friend Ahmed, it's not the hot meals, however, that really stand out.
"You get the best honey here," he said, offering of spoonful of it. "This is the fuel of the revolution, provided by the council."
Is it a candy or a sweet?
So looting Snickers bars is now the definition of freedom?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 22, 2011, 10:16:23 PM
I'm generally pro-Obama, but I agree with you. They don't have anything close to the media control that the last administration seemed to have (reports of Obama telling congressional leaders that there'd be no raids by U.S. aircraft on Libya -- followed by B-2 raids a day later), and that's a significant failure.
Yes and look at what happened to that "control" as the years of the Bush Administration went by...:rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2011, 04:55:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2011, 10:26:27 AM
It wasn't ignored by the congressional authorization of force that Hansie keeps talking about. That authorization was explicitly based on the alleged findings of WMD risk and a Presidential declaration that Iraq was not complying with the UN enforcement mechanisms.
That's a very lawyerly turn of phrase.
I was referring to the action of lawmakers with respect to a legal document, so that is to be expected, no?
It is true that the resolution does not say force can only be used if the WMD are found to exist. That would not make sense. However, the whereas clauses in the resolution are directed principally at the Iraqi WMD program. Indeed the only thing the resolution specifically identifies as a threat to US national security is "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations"; all assumptions that later turned out to be either untrue or exaggerated. The operative clause of the resolution - the one actually authorizing force on Iraq - is specifically conditioned on a Presidential finding that additional diplomatic measures would be insufficient to protect the national security of the US (previously identified as stemming primarily from the alleged WMD capability) and to enforce the UN resolutions (also directed to the WMD program).
To say that the WMD claims did not play a significant role in Congress' decision to authorize force is just as much revisionist nonsense as "Bush lied, people died"
Quote from: Neil on March 22, 2011, 06:35:32 PM
He's a colonel, which is a government position. Doesn't he also hold some sort of title like 'Guide of the Revolution' or something? I don't think it's appropriate to project your ideas on government structure on a country with no rule of law.
I think he is a retired colonel, it's just an honorary title. He is "Guide to the Revolution" but that is not a governmental position. There is a whole governmental structure based on councils which then nominate higher councils and eventually government ministers and he has no position in that structure.
Your latter point is well taken; however, it just reinforces the lack of some claim of legitimacy based on state sovereignty.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2011, 04:33:34 PM
Well to be fair a mafia style family using force to loot the assets of the state describe a whole number of Middle Eastern regimes not in a state of collapse and describe Libya prior to the current conflict. That's not me making a 'why not Saudi Arabia' comment, I don't buy that argment.
There are degrees of kleptocracy. Many of the princely or monarchical middle eastern states make some attempt to create a civilian sphere with some semblance of the rule of law. That never really existed in Libya and now that whatever passed for civil society in that country has rejected the Qadaffi dons, the fiction is laid bare. The Gulf regimes, whatever their many faults, are not at that level of extreme. If you were to ask "why not Syria" I would tend agree - other than for practical reasons of expediency, I can't see any need to respect the "state sovereignty" of the Assad criminal organization.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2011, 10:14:52 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2011, 04:33:34 PM
Well to be fair a mafia style family using force to loot the assets of the state describe a whole number of Middle Eastern regimes not in a state of collapse and describe Libya prior to the current conflict. That's not me making a 'why not Saudi Arabia' comment, I don't buy that argment.
There are degrees of kleptocracy. Many of the princely or monarchical middle eastern states make some attempt to create a civilian sphere with some semblance of the rule of law. That never really existed in Libya and now that whatever passed for civil society in that country has rejected the Qadaffi dons, the fiction is laid bare. The Gulf regimes, whatever their many faults, are not at that level of extreme. If you were to ask "why not Syria" I would tend agree - other than for practical reasons of expediency, I can't see any need to respect the "state sovereignty" of the Assad criminal organization.
Apparently the populations of many Mid East countries are coming to similar conclusions, that their problems are created by their bogus governments. We don't see anti-West slogans and movements in these nations, at least not in their initial calls for reform or in protests in the streets. Even Syria is having some small protests. Years ago the previous ruler massacred thousands of protesters; that may not be so doable now with so much changing and so many in the world watching.
I'd hate to be a Libyan government artilleryman at this point in time.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 23, 2011, 11:47:17 AM
I'd hate to be a Libyan government artilleryman at this point in time.
I saw a hilarious video on CNN last night where reporters were told they were going to be taken to the site of an air strike that had caused lots of civilian casualties. So when they arrived it turned out to be just a bunch of wrecked BM-25s with no signs of any casualties whatsoever. They asked the Libyan gov't. handler where the civilian casualties were & he went off on a Baghdad Bob-style rant.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 23, 2011, 11:47:17 AM
I'd hate to be a Libyan government artilleryman at this point in time.
You wouldn't have to spend much more time fretting about it though. :)
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2011, 12:33:17 PM
I saw a hilarious video on CNN last night where reporters were told they were going to be taken to the site of an air strike that had caused lots of civilian casualties. So when they arrived it turned out to be just a bunch of wrecked BM-25s with no signs of any casualties whatsoever. They asked the Libyan gov't. handler where the civilian casualties were & he went off on a Baghdad Bob-style rant.
It would've been a much more interesting ending if Libyans responded: "Where are civilian casualties? Right where you'll all standing right now. Muahahahahaha!"
Where there's a will there's a way:
QuoteGadhafi troops attack main hospital in Misrata
Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- Despite coalition airstrikes, troops loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi continued to terrorize residents of the besieged rebel-held city of Misrata Wednesday.
In the city's main hospital, where 400 people -- about half of them patients -- were located, one witness said Gadhafi's forces had attacked. The push began at 8 p.m. (2 p.m. ET), when "heavy tanks for Gadhafi troops start attacking the hospital -- the bombs falling here 20 meters (66 feet) around us," said one person inside the hospital. He said two deaths had occurred "around the hospital."
At one point, shelling occurred without respite for 40 minutes, he said. "Now, fortunately, no more shelling, but the situation is so serious that all the teams here -- the doctors, the patients -- are paralyzed, scared."
He called for international intervention to protect the civilians inside the institution. "Nobody can work here," he said. All the doctors here are completely paralyzed." Ambulances were not able to leave the hospital, which had lost its electricity and was running on generator power, he said.
During the last day, the international coalition has flown 175 sorties over Libya -- 113 of them by U.S. planes and the remainder from other nations participating in the U.N.-backed mission, U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Gerard Hueber told reporters Wednesday.
The Libyan air force has been crippled, and the no-fly zone spans Libya from east to west along its coastline, said Hueber, the chief of staff for U.S. operations. But the coalition has had no indication that Gadhafi was complying with a United Nations mandate to stop attacks against civilians.
With Gadhafi's air power rendered ineffective, coalition airstrikes were focusing on his ground forces in Ajdabiya and Misrata.
Coalition jets are using smart bombs to target mechanized forces and mobile surface-to-air missile sites and impede supply lines for their "beans and bullets," Hueber said. The targets include Libya's premier 32nd Brigade, commanded by one of Gadhafi's sons and fully engaged in the fighting.
"It's an extremely complex and difficult environment," Hueber said about going after forces in populated areas.
"And our primary focus is to interdict those forces before they enter the city ... cut off their lines of communication and cut off their command and control," he said. "There have been no reports of civilian casualties. Our mission here is to protect the civilian populace and we choose our targets and plan our actions with that as our top priority."
Wednesday night's outbreak of violence broke a respite that began earlier in the day with the coalition attacks -- the first calm in a week, Misrata residents reported.
"We would like to express our gratitude to the international community since there were airstrikes this morning," said Mohammed, an opposition spokesman in the city who would identify himself only by his first name.
Gadhafi's forces had been stationed on the outskirts of the city, where they were providing support and supplies to loyalists fighting rebels in Misrata proper.
Earlier in the day, grocery stores and other shops opened in the city, which is located two hours east of Tripoli and has been inaccessible to journalists.
One person inside the hospital told CNN that five more people were killed in the last 24 hours, raising the death toll to at least 95 in the last seven days. A man who died Wednesday morning was shot by a sniper, the doctor said.
Gen. Abdul Fatah Younis, a former interior minister who quit to lead opposition forces, said rebels have requested weapons from several nations to help the embattled city.
"Misrata is destroyed and they need weapons," Younis told CNN. "We try to send them weapons, but of course they were all light weapons. There were no heavy weapons."
Inside bombed Libyan military base In Tripoli, the clatter of anti-aircraft weapons could be heard.
In Ajdabiya, parts of the city fell to opposition forces even though Gadhafi's men, who have been pounding the area with artillery and heavy tank bombardments, retained control of the northern and western gates, opposition fighters and witnesses told CNN.
A hospital staffer and opposition fighters said nine people were killed Wednesday in fighting near the northern gate.
The international airstrikes against Libyan military positions began over the weekend after Gadhafi defied a United Nations-mandated cease-fire in attacks against civilians. The strikes are intended to help establish a no-fly zone.
The campaign was in its fifth day as Sweden announced it has frozen more than $1.53 billion in Libyan assets in response to EU sanctions imposed on the northern African country.
France launched the air campaign in Libya and Britain and the United States followed. Germany is not participating in the military action, though it agrees with the United Nations resolution in principle, and moved Wednesday to ensure that its ships were far removed from the Libyan campaign.
A German navy spokesman said Wednesday that all German ships previously under NATO command in the Mediterranean Sea were reassigned to operate under national command and are returning to previously scheduled port stops in Europe to await further instructions. German crew members of NATO fighter jets were also under German command.
Britain announced an international meeting for next Tuesday called to assess successes and needs in Libya.
Late Monday, coalition forces suffered a setback when a U.S. fighter jet malfunctioned and crashed near Benghazi in eastern Libya.
The two crew members parachuted out and landed in different places. U.S. rescue teams, picking up the pilot, dropped two 500-pound laser-guided bombs after they saw an armored vehicle approaching the pilot and feared for his safety, said Capt. Richard Ulsh, spokesman for the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit.
An investigation of the incident is underway after reports surfaced that some Libyans were wounded by shrapnel.
Capt. Becky Massey, the pilot of one of the two Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft involved in the rescue, said the bombs were dropped three miles from the downed pilot. One of the Ospreys then landed and picked up the pilot.
A U.S. aircraft later dropped munitions on the F-15E wreckage to destroy it, a U.S. military official told CNN.
Rebels had already recovered the second crew member, a weapons officer, and treated him with "respect and dignity" until coalition forces reached him, U.S. Navy Adm. Samuel Locklear III said Tuesday. It was not immediately clear how the weapons officer was retrieved by U.S. authorities.
The Libyan war was sparked in February by protests demanding an end to Gadhafi's almost 42-year rule. The Libyan strongman responded with force, prompting the international community to take action.
However, a Johns Hopkins University professor said the coalition can achieve only so much through aerial strikes.
"We have to understand the limits of what air power can do," Fouad Ajami told CNN's "AC360."
"This is a recipe for a stalemate," he said.
Criticism and questions persist about the international campaign, with no clear answer on who will take over command of the mission and what the exit strategy will be.
U.S. President Barack Obama said the timetable for a transition of military leadership will be coming in days, not weeks.
NATO said Wednesday it will decide shortly what its role in the operation will be. A spokesman added the alliance is well prepared.
"This is the bread and butter of NATO," an official said.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe has voiced his opposition to NATO taking political leadership over the Libya campaign. He suggested that a commission composed of foreign ministers from the participating states play that role.
Ajami, however, said the Arab world would welcome NATO involvement.
"They know that the calamity is unfolding in Libya, and they know that no help is going to come other than from the West and from the United States."
British Prime Minister David Cameron said Wednesday that Kuwait and Jordan have agreed to provide logistical support to the Libyan effort.
Jordanian government spokesman Taher Edwan told CNN that Jordan's role will be limited to a humanitarian one. "Jordan did not and will not have any military participation in Libya, neither in planes or on the ground at all in Libya," he said.
Qatar has already contributed planes to mission.
The United Arab Emirates said Tuesday it will participate -- but only in providing humanitarian assistance.
Toward that end, the country has sent a ship and two planes with basic relief supplies, the country's news agency said.
From Al-Jazeera:
QuoteNATO nations fail to reach agreement on Libya
Last Modified: 23 Mar 2011 20:01
NATO members have again failed to agree on what role the military alliance should play in operations in Libya, following a third day of talks in Brussels, the Belgian capital.
Ambassadors from the 28-nation alliance have held daily meetings since Monday to decide whether NATO should take a commanding role in imposing the no-fly zone over the North African country amid differences between NATO members already participating and Turkey, which has criticised the conduct of the operation.
France insists that political control should be in the hands of an international coalition, while NATO would be in charge of planning and operations.
"There was no agreement and the discussions continue," a diplomat told the AFP news agency, following Wednesday's round of talks among ambassadors of the 28-nation alliance.
The debate will resume Thursday, the diplomat said.
Turkey, a NATO member, has said the air campaign over Libya led by France, the US and Britain has already gone beyond the scope of last week's UN Security Council resolution to enforce a no-fly zone and protect civilians.
The BBC reported on Wednesday that Abdullah Gul, the Turkish president, had cautioned the international coalition not to follow any hidden agenda over its operations in Libya.
Gul said it was "obvious" that some coalition countries saw the conflict as an opportunity for themselves.
Turkey has said the alliance's role should be governed by several conditions, including an end to the military campaign as soon as possible.
In a speech to his ruling AK Party on Tuesday, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the country's prime minister, said Turkey "will never point a gun at the Libyan people" and would explain its position to NATO allies.
Barack Obama, the US president, under domestic pressure to limit US involvement, said on Tuesday he had "absolutely no doubt" a deal would be reached soon.
The question of who takes over leadership of the Libya mission is crucial for Obama, who has stressed limited US involvement to both voters and politicians worried about US forces becoming bogged down in another Muslim country while still occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan.
'Arab sensibilities'
The US, Britain and France agreed on Tuesday that the alliance should play a key operational role, but the agreement of all 28 NATO states is needed and they have been split over whether it should also exercise political control.
France, which launched the air campaign against Libya with Britain and the US on Saturday, argues that having a US-led NATO in charge would erode Arab support because of the alliance's unpopularity in the Arab world.
Qatar has sent four warplanes, the United Arab Emirates has offered support, and David Cameron, the British prime minister, said Kuwait and Jordan had agreed to make logistical contributions to protect civilians in Libya.
France wants to create an ad hoc steering group of member states of the coalition, including the Arab League, to exercise political control.
Laurence Lee, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Brussels, said the US, the French and the British had come to "some sort of accommodation with each other" but that there was still no final agreement.
Lee said: "On one level, the Americans, the British, have their way ... that NATO would run the military aspect of things and in turn the French would have their way, the Nato political command wouldn't be in charge and instead the plan says there would be a different sort of umbrella grouping.
"[This] would take in not just foreign ministers from Western NATO countries but foreign ministers from countries, for example, like Qatar or the Arab League ... to demonstrate a much bigger political umbrella and give a nod to the fact that NATO is acutely aware that this could be inflammatory to Muslim and Arab sensibilities."
One possible model would be the structure of the NATO-led International Peace Assistance Force in Afghanistan, in which non-NATO participating nations get a seat in the political steering group, diplomats said.
"For reasons of efficiency, we want a single command structure to run the coalition action, and NATO has such capabilities, so we must use its resources," Francois Baroin, a French government spokesman, said after a cabinet meeting in Paris.
"We are working to ensure that the coalition continues to retain the political leadership," Baroin said. "Talks with our allies are being finalised. It''s not quite nailed down yet."
UK summit
William Hague, the UK foreign minister, said on Wednesday that Britain would host an international conference in London next Tuesday to discuss progress on the Libyan intervention.
"At the conference we will discuss the situation in Libya with our allies and partners and take stock of the
implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973," Hague said in a statement.
"We will consider the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people and identify ways to support the people of Libya in their aspirations for a better future."
Hague said a "wide and inclusive range of countries" would be invited, particularly from the region.
"It is critical that the international community continues to take united and coordinated action in response to the unfolding crisis," he said.
"The meeting will form a contact group of nations to take forward this work."
Earlier French officials said the meeting would be at foreign minister level and would include the African Union, the Arab League and the associated European countries.
Turkish navy
Also on Wednesday, Turkey offered four frigates, a submarine and a support ship to help NATO enforce a UN arms embargo on Libya, the military alliance said.
Brigadier Pierre St Amand, a NATO military officer, said the alliance had so far received offers of 16 ships from a number of countries to implement the mission.
He said the ships included: a command-and-control ship from Italy; 10 frigates, including four from Turkey and one each from Britain, Spain, Greece, Italy, Canada and the US; submarines from Spain, Italy and Turkey; and auxiliary ships from Italy and Turkey.
St Amand said the NATO mission was authorised to use armed force to enforce the embargo.
The NATO mission will have the means to intercept and board suspicious ships, and the authority to fire a warning shot across the bow, a NATO official said on condition of anonymity.
"If after inspection, doubts remain as to the legitimacy of the cargo, the vessel will be diverted to a designated port for further inspection," St Amand said.
The operation was officially launched late on Tuesday after envoys of the 28-nation alliance gave the green light
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 22, 2011, 10:16:23 PM
I'm generally pro-Obama, but I agree with you. They don't have anything close to the media control that the last administration seemed to have (reports of Obama telling congressional leaders that there'd be no raids by U.S. aircraft on Libya -- followed by B-2 raids a day later), and that's a significant failure.
That's a really cute way to characterize it. Oh, no-- it has nothing to do with the administration lacking a coherent message. The Obama administration just lacks all the sympathetic journalists the Bush administration had :rolleyes:
Quote from: KRonn on March 23, 2011, 10:28:40 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2011, 10:14:52 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2011, 04:33:34 PM
Well to be fair a mafia style family using force to loot the assets of the state describe a whole number of Middle Eastern regimes not in a state of collapse and describe Libya prior to the current conflict. That's not me making a 'why not Saudi Arabia' comment, I don't buy that argment.
There are degrees of kleptocracy. Many of the princely or monarchical middle eastern states make some attempt to create a civilian sphere with some semblance of the rule of law. That never really existed in Libya and now that whatever passed for civil society in that country has rejected the Qadaffi dons, the fiction is laid bare. The Gulf regimes, whatever their many faults, are not at that level of extreme. If you were to ask "why not Syria" I would tend agree - other than for practical reasons of expediency, I can't see any need to respect the "state sovereignty" of the Assad criminal organization.
Apparently the populations of many Mid East countries are coming to similar conclusions, that their problems are created by their bogus governments. We don't see anti-West slogans and movements in these nations, at least not in their initial calls for reform or in protests in the streets. Even Syria is having some small protests. Years ago the previous ruler massacred thousands of protesters; that may not be so doable now with so much changing and so many in the world watching.
It doesn't matter how many people are watching if you don't care about their opinions on the matter.
The key question about the do-ability of it is, will the military stay loyal if they're called on to massacre their own civilian population on a large scale.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2011, 10:07:22 AM
I think he is a retired colonel, it's just an honorary title. He is "Guide to the Revolution" but that is not a governmental position. There is a whole governmental structure based on councils which then nominate higher councils and eventually government ministers and he has no position in that structure.
Your latter point is well taken; however, it just reinforces the lack of some claim of legitimacy based on state sovereignty.
Does it? An idiosyncratic absolutist state isn't unprecedented.
Not to worry; President-Elect Palin is just around the corner. Not too much longer now.
Palin wants us to bomb the hell out of those Libyans, because she doesn't think women should be married to other women.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2011, 08:30:40 PM
Not to worry; President-Elect Palin is just around the corner. Not too much longer now.
Just think of all the teachers' health insurance we could have paid for the the money we blew on those cruise missiles :(
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 23, 2011, 11:47:17 AM
I'd hate to be a Libyan government artilleryman at this point in time.
I'd hate to be a Libyan at any point in time.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2011, 09:37:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2011, 08:30:40 PM
Not to worry; President-Elect Palin is just around the corner. Not too much longer now.
Just think of all the teachers' health insurance we could have paid for the the money we blew on those cruise missiles :(
Are you kidding? The teachers' unions are why we don't have enough cruise missiles.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2011, 09:37:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2011, 08:30:40 PM
Not to worry; President-Elect Palin is just around the corner. Not too much longer now.
Just think of all the teachers' health insurance we could have paid for the the money we blew on those cruise missiles :(
Could you really? :hmm:
What's the opportunity cost of reducing the production of missiles? How many employees would have to be let go, and what would it cost to keep them fed and housed? Is a teacher's health insurance more important than a factory worker's?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752580,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752580,00.html)
QuoteLibyan Rebel Stronghold
Frustration Mounts on the Streets of Benghazi
By Jonathan Stock in Benghazi
In the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi, tensions are mounting between conservative reformers, trigger-happy youths and Gadhafi loyalists. There is growing frustration at the lack of jobs as companies pulled out of the city. The absence of progress is putting the revolution at risk.
While international journalists are piling into Libya to report on the air strikes by Western fighter jets, while children are playing among destroyed tanks and the rebels are storming towards Ajdabiyah, there's a strange, separate war raging behind the front line, in Benghazi.
Conservative reformers, inexperienced rebels and supporters of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi are pitted against each other in this struggle. A new order is being established in the city. And the longer Gadhafi manages to stay in power, the longer schools stay shut and commercial life remains on hold, the greater the chance that the revolution will fail. Without Gadhafi having to lift a finger.
On Liberation Square at the old courthouse, a declaration was issued on Monday that the "Ligan Thauria," the old revolutionary committees and supporters of Gadhafi, had 24 hours to hand over their weapons. If they didn't, they would be treated as what they were: murderers and enemies of the revolution. The term "enemies of the revolution" is familiar. It was used in the French Revolution to put old opponents under the guillotine. Gadhafi used those words himself after his own revolution.
Monday's announcement was the first official declaration on this issue. Recent days have already shown how the rebels are dealing with the enemies of the current revolution. Homes were raided, neighbors dragged off, suspects executed. They were accused of being reactivated by Gadhafi, like al-Qaida activates sleeper cells.
Perhaps the accusations are true. Mohammed Nabous fell victim to Gadhafi loyalists last Saturday. He was one of Benghazi's most prominent journalists. He covered the uprising from Day 1 and set up the first free TV station in the city. He was shot dead shortly after he broadcast evidence that the dictator was breaking UN sanctions. He had just turned 28 and leaves behind a wife and an unborn child.
Across the city, people are disappearing after having spoken to reporters, and journalists themselves are vanishing as well. Some people one interviews don't want to give their names, refuse to be photographed, don't want to meet up and are worried that their phones are being tapped. Rumors are circulating that Gadhafi is targeting Western media to drive them out of the country.
Some 300 Gadhafi supporters with "blood on their hands" are in Benghazi, says Abdul Hafiz Ghoga, a spokesman for the rebels. They drive around in cars firing at passersby in order to spread fear. Others put the number far higher, at 7,000.
"We were all somehow Ligan Thauria," says the neighbor of a Gadhafi loyalist who has just been arrested. People joined up to get student grants to get ahead in their careers, but that didn't make people killers, he says. It sounds like the kind of excuse a former informant of the East German Stasi secret police might give.
"Gadhafi Good!"
A driver waiting in front of a hotel who overheard that I was German said: "Gadhafi good! Gadhafi - Germany - good!". Whenever he came to rebel checkpoints, he gave their "V for Victory" sign, but when he had driven past them, he raised his fist the way Gadhafi does at his propaganda rallies.
Benghazi isn't a pure rebel stronghold, there are Gadhafi supporters here too. They're keeping a low profile and waiting for better days. Some still see Gadhafi as the strong leader he claims to be, as the man who promised to build half a million new houses, which haven't been finished yet, who creates an entire river, the Great Man-Made-River project, which has dried up.
But the rebels have become dangerous too. There is mounting frustration at the slow progress of the revolution. Apart from military successes, not much is happening. Many people are unemployed. Large companies, including German construction firm Bilfinger Berger, have pulled out of the city. Young men race around town with tires screeching, others strut around in public buildings brandishing their knives. At night, the streets are reminiscent of Sao Paolo gang wars, the only difference being that the youths here wear flak jackets.
Many young academics who were about to complete their studies and to get a good job are starting to get frustrated. One, who only talks on the condition that he remains anonymous, studied economics at the Gharyounis University. He was offered a job as a manager at Bilfinger Berger and would have earned good money. Now he's unemployed. He says of the rebels: "They are under 30 and don't have wives. They are proud of the weapons they looted from barracks. They don't know how to control themselves. They quickly become aggressive. They've got these weapons and lose themselves."
But the revolution is good, despite all that, he insists.
Yeah, because one should certainly be expecting that after all this time, good jobs should be available.
If not, then clearly the revolution has failed. They've had days and days to create lots of high paying jobs!
What a bizarre article.
Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2011, 07:25:31 AM
Yeah, because one should certainly be expecting that after all this time, good jobs should be available.
If not, then clearly the revolution has failed. They've had days and days to create lots of high paying jobs!
What a bizarre article.
Its Spiegel. Krauts are weird.
Al-Jazeera's story on Kaddafi's continued attacks. I think it's better than the CNN article I posted yesterday and still shows that you just can't keep a good homicidal tyrant down:
QuoteAir strikes fail to deter Gaddafi forces
Western warplanes have hit Libya for a fifth night, but have so far failed to stop Muammar Gaddafi's tanks from shelling opposition-held towns.
A loud explosion was heard in Tripoli, the capital, early on Thursday, and smoke could be seen rising from an area where a military base is situated.
"We heard another explosion just now. We see smoke rising. There are people on rooftops. It seems to be in a military area near the engineering college [in the Tajoura area]," one resident told Reuters news agency.
Eight explosions were also heard in the east of the capital late on Wednesday.
Libyan state television said Western planes had struck in Tripoli and in Jafar, southwest of the capital.
"Military and civilian targets were attacked by colonialist crusaders," the report said.
French warplanes launched missiles at an air base around 250km inland, military spokesman Thierry Burkhard said.
Government officials have accused coalition forces of killing dozens of civilians, but have not shown reporters in the capital any evidence of such deaths. US military officials deny any civilians have been killed in airstrikes.
Some journalists were taken to a hospital early on Thursday morning and shown 18 charred bodies, which the government said were military personnel and civilians killed in the air strikes, Reuters reported.
Undeterred by raids
The US military said it had successfully established a no-fly zone over Libya's coastal areas and had moved on to attack Gaddafi's tanks.
The allies flew 175 sorties in 24 hours, and the US flew 113 of those, a US commander said.
Gerard Longuet, the French defence minister, said France had destroyed about 10 Libyan armoured vehicles over three days.
Undaunted by air strikes, pro-Gaddafi forces pressed ahead with their assaults on the towns of Misurata, Ajdabiya and Zintan.
Gaddafi's tanks rolled back into Misurata under the cover of darkness and began shelling the area near the main hospital, residents and opposition fighters said, resuming their attack after their guns were silenced on Wednesday by Western air raids. The city, around 200km east of Tripoli and home to a major oil refinery, remains of the the last opposition hold-outs in the west.
Government snipers in the coastal city, Libya's third largest, carried on firing indiscriminately, residents said. An opposition spokesman said the snipers had killed 16 people.
"Government tanks are closing in on Misurata hospital and shelling the area," a doctor in Misurata told Reuters on the phone before the line was cut off.
Four children were killed in the city on Tuesday as regime forces pressed their siege, a resident and a rebel spokesman said. It was impossible to independently verify the reports.
The Libyan government denies its army is conducting any offensive operations and says troops are only defending themselves when they come under attack.
But a resident in Zintan, 106km southwest of Tripoli, said Gaddafi's forces were bringing up more troops and tanks to bombard the opposition-held town.
Pro-democracy fighters had pushed Gaddafi's troops out of the town on Tuesday after enduring heavy shelling the day before, said Gaetan Vannay, a Swiss journalist observing events there. Rebels managed to capture four tanks during their attack, he said.
Meanwhile in the east, opposition fighters were pinned down outside the strategic junction at Ajdabiya after more than three days of trying to recapture the city.
Ajdabiya, around 160km south of the opposition stronghold of Benghazi, is connected by a straight inland road to Tobruk, near the Egyptian border. Despite coalition air strikes targeting Gaddafi's forces along the road between Benghazi and Ajdabiya, rebel forces have been unable to retake the town.
I like the phrase "Colonialist Crusader," it makes it sounds like Bruce Wayne's English great-grandfather Lord Mandebat. :bowler:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv621%2Fccbasin%2Fpost-3-13007536021323.jpg&hash=b3349ce1260c00e628630028ed879664ba55f78f)
Well done, but you spelled Libya wrong. :hmm:
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2011, 07:30:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2011, 10:07:22 AM
I think he is a retired colonel, it's just an honorary title. He is "Guide to the Revolution" but that is not a governmental position. There is a whole governmental structure based on councils which then nominate higher councils and eventually government ministers and he has no position in that structure.
Your latter point is well taken; however, it just reinforces the lack of some claim of legitimacy based on state sovereignty.
Does it? An idiosyncratic absolutist state isn't unprecedented.
Perhaps, but I see no reason why outside powers should be bound to respect it. The rule of respect for state sovereignty is no more than an international norm. A putative regime that operates outside of such norms cannot expect to claim their protection.
Quote from: Slargos on March 24, 2011, 06:12:08 AM
Could you really? :hmm:
What's the opportunity cost of reducing the production of missiles? How many employees would have to be let go, and what would it cost to keep them fed and housed? Is a teacher's health insurance more important than a factory worker's?
I was kidding, Sluggo :contract:
Quote from: Habbaku on March 24, 2011, 08:32:29 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv621%2Fccbasin%2Fpost-3-13007536021323.jpg&hash=b3349ce1260c00e628630028ed879664ba55f78f)
:punk: Rättvisa FTW.
Looks like Khamis is dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khamis_al-Gaddafi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khamis_al-Gaddafi)
Is he the Gadhafi son that looks like lustindarkness? If so, maybe lusti has a future career as his impersonator, a la Moon Over Parador. :showoff:
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2011, 11:36:33 AM
Quote from: Slargos on March 24, 2011, 06:12:08 AM
Could you really? :hmm:
What's the opportunity cost of reducing the production of missiles? How many employees would have to be let go, and what would it cost to keep them fed and housed? Is a teacher's health insurance more important than a factory worker's?
I was kidding, Sluggo :contract:
:Embarrass:
NATO to take command. :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/24/france-turkey-nato-libya
QuoteLibya: Nato to control no-fly zone after France gives way to Turkey
• Climbdown by Sarkozy ends infighting among western allies
• Nato secretary-general contradicts western officials
* Ian Traynor in Brussels and Nicholas Watt
* The Guardian, Friday 25 March 2011
* Article history
Western allies and Turkey have secured a deal to put the entire military campaign against Muammar Gaddafi under Nato command by next week, UK and French sources have told the Guardian.
The US, Britain, France and Turkey agreed to put the three-pronged offensive – a no-fly zone, an arms embargo, and air strikes – under a Nato command umbrella, in a climbdown by France that accommodates strong Turkish complaints about the scope and control of the campaign.
The deal appeared to end days of infighting among western allies, but needed to be blessed by all 28 Nato member states. At the end of a four-day meeting of Nato ambassadors in Brussels, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the secretary general, said Nato had agreed to take command of the no-fly zone from the Americans. Disputes have raged at Nato HQ every day this week. Rasmussen contradicted leading western officials by announcing that Nato's authority was limited to commanding the no-fly zone, but he signalled there was more negotiation to come.
"At this moment, there will still be a coalition operation and a Nato operation," he said. This meant Nato would command the no-fly zone and police the arms embargo. But on the most contentious part, air strikes and ground attacks against Gaddafi, consensus remained elusive.
The agreement emerged from phone calls between William Hague, the foreign secretary, Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, and Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, following rancorous attacks from the Turkish leadership on French ambitions to lead the anti-Gaddafi war effort.
The agreement also gives political oversight of the military action to a committee of the international coalition in the campaign. Since the no-fly zone and air attacks on Libya began last Saturday by France, Washington has been in charge of operations, but is eager to surrender the role.
Under the scheme agreed, the transfer to Nato will take place by the latest in London on Tuesday, when the parties to the coalition against Gaddafi gather in London for a special "contact group" conference. French sources said the Benghazi-based Libyan rebel leadership would be in London to attend. The conference will consist of two meetings: a war council made up of the main governments taking part in the military action, as well as a broader assembly including Arab and African countries devoted to Libya's future.
Hillary Clinton welcomed the Nato decision to take command of the Libyan operations and police the no-fly zone, and she expected that it would eventually take over responsibility for protecting civilians, enforcing an arms embargo and supporting the humanitarian mission. "We are taking the next step. We have agreed along with our Nato allies to transition command and control for the no-fly zone over Libya to Nato. All 28 allies have also now authorised military authorities to develop an operations plan for Nato to take on the broader civilian protection mission," she said.
She said the United Arab Emirates was to join Qatar in sending planes to enforce the no-fly zone.
Barack Obama, who returned to Washington on Wednesday, is reluctant to make a televised address to the nation about Libya because he is keen to try to keep it low-key. Administration officials, as part of this strategy, pointedly refuse to call it a war.
Republicans have been calling on him to explain the mission. The president has also faced criticism from his own Democratic party.
"I think he needs to face the nation and tell the nation, and tell Congress, what the end game is and how this going to play out," Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, said on MSNBC.President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had tried to diminish the role of Nato, conceded, in the face of Turkish opposition, that a two-tier structure would run the operation: Nato "assets" will co-ordinate all aspects, including enforcement of the no-fly zone, protecting civilians through air strikes, and enforcing a UN arms embargo. Juppé agreed that Nato would be in control of the entire operation.
Political oversight will be in the hands of a committee of a smaller number of countries involved in the military campaign.
There had been bitter attacks from the Turkish government on Sarkozy's leadership of the campaign, accusing the French of lacking a conscience in their conduct of operations, with criticism from the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the president, Abdullah Gül.
France had insisted on Tuesday that the operations would be "non-Nato". Turkey was emphatically behind sole Nato control of the operations. In Istanbul, Erdogan said: "I wish that those who only see oil, gold mines and underground treasures when they look in [Libya's] direction, would see the region through glasses of conscience from now on."
This week, Claude Guéant, the French interior minister who was previously Sarkozy's chief adviser, angered the Muslim world by stating that the French president was "leading a crusade" to stop Gaddafi massacring Libyans. Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin also used the word in reference to air strikes on Libya. And George Bush had notoriously used the word after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US that led to the Iraq war.
Erdogan said: "Those who use such hair-raising, frightening terms that fuel clashes of civilisations, or those who even think of them, need to immediately evaluate their own conscience."
The Turks are incensed at repeated snubs by Sarkozy. The French failed to invite Turkey to last Saturday's summit in Paris, which preceded the air strikes. French fighters taking off from Corsica struck the first blows. The Turkish government accused Sarkozy of launching not only the no-fly zone, but his presidential re-election campaign.
The dispute over Libya appears highly personal. Sarkozy went to Turkey last month for the first time in four years as president, but the visit was repeatedly delayed and then downgraded from a state presidential event. He stayed in Turkey for five hours. "Relations between Turkey and France deserve more than this," complained Erdogan. "I will speak with frankness. We wish to host him as president of France. But he is coming as president of the G20, not as that of France."
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2011, 04:36:11 PM
Is he the Gadhafi son that looks like lustindarkness? If so, maybe lusti has a future career as his impersonator, a la Moon Over Parador. :showoff:
Maybe it was Lusti who died! :o
Quote from: dps on March 24, 2011, 08:58:17 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2011, 04:36:11 PM
Is he the Gadhafi son that looks like lustindarkness? If so, maybe lusti has a future career as his impersonator, a la Moon Over Parador. :showoff:
Maybe it was Lusti who died! :o
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/34612_411427052513_364629177513_4736669_2511457_n.jpg)
Although Wiki says he's no longer dead.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2011, 11:21:42 AM
Perhaps, but I see no reason why outside powers should be bound to respect it. The rule of respect for state sovereignty is no more than an international norm. A putative regime that operates outside of such norms cannot expect to claim their protection.
Stalin's prewar regime enjoyed such protection. It seems like the precedent is that any regime at all can expect some level of respect.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 24, 2011, 09:07:58 PM
Quote from: dps on March 24, 2011, 08:58:17 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2011, 04:36:11 PM
Is he the Gadhafi son that looks like lustindarkness? If so, maybe lusti has a future career as his impersonator, a la Moon Over Parador. :showoff:
Maybe it was Lusti who died! :o
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/34612_411427052513_364629177513_4736669_2511457_n.jpg)
Although Wiki says he's no longer dead.
I guess he got better.
Quote from: Neil on March 24, 2011, 09:10:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2011, 11:21:42 AM
Perhaps, but I see no reason why outside powers should be bound to respect it. The rule of respect for state sovereignty is no more than an international norm. A putative regime that operates outside of such norms cannot expect to claim their protection.
Stalin's prewar regime enjoyed such protection. It seems like the precedent is that any regime at all can expect some level of respect.
It was power that brought that respect, not legitimacy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2011, 09:31:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 24, 2011, 09:10:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2011, 11:21:42 AM
Perhaps, but I see no reason why outside powers should be bound to respect it. The rule of respect for state sovereignty is no more than an international norm. A putative regime that operates outside of such norms cannot expect to claim their protection.
Stalin's prewar regime enjoyed such protection. It seems like the precedent is that any regime at all can expect some level of respect.
It was power that brought that respect, not legitimacy.
Fuck you.
Quote from: dps on March 24, 2011, 09:16:45 PM
I guess he got better.
Dang I wanted to do the whole impersonating of a lost prince thing and launch a coup in Lusti's name.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.leprosorium.com%2F1090630&hash=071a21cdfdf5ecf3027938ea3e5d0dbf16f724f3)
:lmfao:
Quote from: Neil on March 24, 2011, 09:10:32 PM
Stalin's prewar regime enjoyed such protection.
not so, the British, French, and even the Yanks had no compunction landing their troops and marching them about until their publics got too war weary to keep it up.
The Soviet regime subsequently stayed afloat because of the fatigue and opportunism of the outside powers, not because of their respect for the integrity of the Bolshevik state.
:ph34r:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2011, 10:45:04 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 24, 2011, 09:10:32 PM
Stalin's prewar regime enjoyed such protection.
not so, the British, French, and even the Yanks had no compunction landing their troops and marching them about until their publics got too war weary to keep it up.
The Soviet regime subsequently stayed afloat because of the fatigue and opportunism of the outside powers, not because of their respect for the integrity of the Bolshevik state.
To get technical, there were no western troops there by the time Stalin took over IIRC.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2011, 10:45:04 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 24, 2011, 09:10:32 PM
Stalin's prewar regime enjoyed such protection.
not so, the British, French, and even the Yanks had no compunction landing their troops and marching them about until their publics got too war weary to keep it up.
The Soviet regime subsequently stayed afloat because of the fatigue and opportunism of the outside powers, not because of their respect for the integrity of the Bolshevik state.
Relations had normalized by the time that Stalin was running things, and they were signing agreements with them at that point.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/24/2132509/on-the-ground-in-libya-rebels.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/24/2132509/on-the-ground-in-libya-rebels.html)
QuoteOn the ground in Libya: Rebels with a cause, but little else
By NANCY A. YOUSSEF
McClatchy Newspapers
BENGHAZI, Libya -- Rebel fighters who once vowed to seize Tripoli from Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi instead have retreated from their forward positions to defend their homes, saying their rebel council isn't leading them, they don't trust their military commanders and their army is divided.
Days of interviews throughout Libya's rebel-dominated eastern half provide a grim picture of the group whose side the United States and its coalition partners have taken in a fight whose goal, if unstated, is to drive Gadhafi from power after 42 years. The rebels hardly seem ready to take the lead.
Rather than strive to win the war and take back cities lost to Gadhafi over the last 10 days, rebel fighters say they simply want to defend their homes, figure out who's friend or foe, and regroup.
Hopes of a new constitutional, democratic Libya that drove the rebellion a month ago appear moribund, dashed by the ease with which Gadhafi forces entered this city a week ago. Residents here openly acknowledge that Gadhafi loyalists would have taken the city had French aircraft not bombed loyalist tanks.
The realization that they could have been so quickly overwhelmed has forced the rebels to confront the weaknesses of the council that claims to be their government and of the rebel fighting force itself. Perhaps most unnerving was the discovery that hundreds, if not thousands, of Gadhafi sympathizers were among them.
During the loyalist attack, rebels here say, men in civilian clothes came out of their Benghazi homes and attacked the city along with Gadhafi forces charging in from the south. Rebels said they suspect other infiltrators have spied on them from the frontline.
"We don't have an army," said Lt. Saleh Ibrahim, a former restaurateur who is now supposed to be a rebel commander. "We have been betrayed by infiltrators on the frontline. And when Benghazi came under attack, our government fled to Egypt. We are not safe here. For me, at least I will defend my family."
QuoteAmong those who've left the frontlines to defend his home is 19-year-old Ayub al-Mehdu, who was part of the initial rebel push into Ajdabiya, Brega, Ras Lanouf and Bin Jawad, all communities since lost to Gadhafi forces. His job was to pick up the dead bodies, almost always stripped for weapons, he said. Along the way, he lost his best friend, also a rebel fighter.
The mild-mannered young man with the tiny frame returned to Benghazi three days ago, He says he's planning to buy smuggled weapons near the Egyptian border. In the meantime, he and his friends stand outside the neighborhood and stop cars, particularly those from Tripoli, and search them for possible infiltrators.
His reasons for leaving are pretty simple, he said. There's an internal strife between Special Forces, many of whom are former military officers, and the rebels, a majority of whom had never fired a weapon until last month.
The Special Forces feel the rebels are slowing them down; the rebels don't trust the Special Forces and want to defend the movement they started. Both groups are ill equipped to confront Gadhafi's better armed forces.
The rebel council hasn't done much for him, other than provide food to fighters, he said.
"It's useless," he explained.
His friend and fellow fighter, Mohammed Saleh Ojadee, 23, a mechanic shop owner turned rebel fighter, offers a more ominous prediction. He said he fears that the power vacuum, and the constant feeling of mistrust here, could spark a civil war, based on vengeance for acts of betrayal that happen during this uncertain period.
"The continuous unrest that is happening in Benghazi has never happened before. We are not used to it. I am afraid people will lose hope living under that pressure and turn on one another," Ojadee said. "We need a leader."
Divided they fall...
:bleeding: Whata buncha pinheads. Glad it's Sarkozy that has to deal with them and not us.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 24, 2011, 10:29:55 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.leprosorium.com%2F1090630&hash=071a21cdfdf5ecf3027938ea3e5d0dbf16f724f3)
look at that fucking hipster.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2011, 10:18:21 AM
:bleeding: Whata buncha pinheads. Glad it's Sarkozy that has to deal with them and not us.
Sounds like we're going to be sticking around and blowing shit up for awhile yet.
Quote from: Kleves on March 25, 2011, 10:25:46 AM
Sounds like we're going to be sticking around and blowing shit up for awhile yet.
We're just protecting innocent civilians. Whereas France has recognized the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya. :contract
Just heard on CNN that some Canuck general (Bouchard) has been put in charge of the operation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2011, 12:11:45 PM
Just heard on CNN that some Canuck general (Bouchard) has been put in charge of the operation.
Obviously this is because Canadians have never lost a war. Got to put that winning streak to the test.
Well at least not while the Afghanistan war is not quite finished yet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2011, 12:11:45 PM
Just heard on CNN that some Canuck general (Bouchard) has been put in charge of the operation.
But Sarkozy apparently doesn't want to yield control.
Fuck this standard French attitude. The others should leave and let him sort this mess out.
Sarko can run it if he wants, for all I care. He can also increase France's material commitment, letting us relax for a change with a token contribution.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
yay! Mummar was right!
Whoever wins, we lose. By all means, though, lets keep bombing stuff for some indeterminate reason, for some inderterminate length of time.
Quote from: Kleves on March 26, 2011, 09:32:53 AM
Whoever wins, we lose. By all means, though, lets keep bombing stuff for some indeterminate reason, for some inderterminate length of time.
Funny fact: Europeans like to hate America for bombing stuff in a "Leeroy Jankins" manner and selling their inconsiderate agression and ramptant greed for oil as championing freedom
And now Europe does the same. And -even more funnily- they do it over a country with lotsa' oil, and they call it defending lifes and freedom. And america-haters applaud them for it. Go figure.
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2011, 10:12:57 AM
Quote from: Kleves on March 26, 2011, 09:32:53 AM
Whoever wins, we lose. By all means, though, lets keep bombing stuff for some indeterminate reason, for some inderterminate length of time.
Funny fact: Europeans like to hate America for bombing stuff in a "Leeroy Jankins" manner and selling their inconsiderate agression and ramptant greed for oil as championing freedom
And now Europe does the same. And -even more funnily- they do it over a country with lotsa' oil, and they call it defending lifes and freedom. And america-haters applaud them for it. Go figure.
Your post suggests it's really Libya's vast surplus of arable crop by-product thats been fought over.
Perhaps the most upsetting story I've seen coming out of Libya:
Gaddafi media minders/thugs snatch 'rape victim' away from foreign journalists:
Watch the video, Channel 4 news:
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/260311/clipid/260311_LibyaMiller_26 (http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/260311/clipid/260311_LibyaMiller_26)
Very brave woman, though she's probably 'signed her own death warrant'.
Quote from: Neil on March 24, 2011, 09:10:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2011, 11:21:42 AM
Perhaps, but I see no reason why outside powers should be bound to respect it. The rule of respect for state sovereignty is no more than an international norm. A putative regime that operates outside of such norms cannot expect to claim their protection.
Stalin's prewar regime enjoyed such protection. It seems like the precedent is that any regime at all can expect some level of respect.
It always baffles me when people bring up events from nearly 100 years ago as some sort of justification for modern international politics.
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2011, 10:12:57 AM
Quote from: Kleves on March 26, 2011, 09:32:53 AM
Whoever wins, we lose. By all means, though, lets keep bombing stuff for some indeterminate reason, for some inderterminate length of time.
Funny fact: Europeans like to hate America for bombing stuff in a "Leeroy Jankins" manner and selling their inconsiderate agression and ramptant greed for oil as championing freedom
And now Europe does the same. And -even more funnily- they do it over a country with lotsa' oil, and they call it defending lifes and freedom. And america-haters applaud them for it. Go figure.
Why are you being an unethical retard? Does it make you feel "smart" or "cool" to be cynical? You are a useless lower class representative of a useless nation. You are a cannon fodder, not one of the movers and shakers of the world - noone here is. At least I can understand why some Americans think it is only right to drop bombs if it is in America's interest - and ethics of this be damned. Can't understand why you take this view, though.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2011, 05:58:48 PM
At least I can understand why some Americans think it is only right to drop bombs if it is in America's interest - and ethics of this be damned. Can't understand why you take this view, though.
Clearly it is right and good to drop bombs in many many situations. But in some situations it is more right than others.
Why are they using chemical bombs?
Top-notch rant Marty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2011, 06:35:07 PM
Top-notch rant Marty.
Tough talk on human rights from a member of a nation of collaborators and jew killers? pfft.
NPR was reporting that the rebs had captured/recaptured some town from the Kaddafites. Hadn't heard of the town before, Amujibad or something.
These rebels really need to get their act together, all they have to do is organise a couple of battalions worth of determined fighters and then drive the 600-700 miles up the coast road to Tripoli.
After all they have possible the best close air support the world has yet seen, the fighting is largley in open desert. And they face an enemy who never seems to dig in, use prepared positions or plant landmines/IED the main road to stop the rebels, how difficult is it to just drive to Tripoli ?
And the constant celebratory gunfire is getting old. :rolleyes:
Quote from: dps link=topic=4500.msg233792#msg233792
To get technical, there were no western troops there by the time Stalin took over IIRC.
That is technical because the relevant entity is the Bolshevik regime as a whole and because Stalin was already a big player in that regime by 1920.
Reports that allied airstrikes are now hitting up the road toward Sirte.
Quote from: jamesww on March 26, 2011, 08:22:01 PMReports that allied airstrikes are now hitting up the road toward Sirte.
Good! We should have intervened sooner, and the UN mandate should be for regime change - Gaddafi is clearly oppressing his people and needs replacing.
The forces shelling Misarata have been hit and forced to back off.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42281005/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2011, 05:48:39 PM
It always baffles me when people bring up events from nearly 100 years ago as some sort of justification for modern international politics.
I'm not surprised that you don't understand precedent and predictability. I suggest you be less of a Slav.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2011, 05:58:48 PM
You are a useless lower class representative of a useless nation.
:lol: Pot, kettle.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
Hooray for helping to create a third Islamic state in a decade, America/Britain.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 26, 2011, 10:04:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2011, 05:58:48 PM
You are a useless lower class representative of a useless nation.
:lol: Pot, kettle.
Only half-true. I'm not lower class. I'm in 0.1% of top earners in my country.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2011, 10:45:04 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 24, 2011, 09:10:32 PM
Stalin's prewar regime enjoyed such protection.
not so, the British, French, and even the Yanks had no compunction landing their troops and marching them about until their publics got too war weary to keep it up.
The Soviet regime subsequently stayed afloat because of the fatigue and opportunism of the outside powers, not because of their respect for the integrity of the Bolshevik state.
Indeed, and it's not like Poland got condemned by the international community when it kicked the Soviet's ass in 1920 and took a big chunk of Western Soviet Union (Western Ukraine, Belarus) in the process.
Quote from: Neil on March 26, 2011, 09:29:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2011, 05:48:39 PM
It always baffles me when people bring up events from nearly 100 years ago as some sort of justification for modern international politics.
I'm not surprised that you don't understand precedent and predictability. I suggest you be less of a Slav.
The UN Charter is a treaty that regulates these things now so what happened before it was adopted is not relevant.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2011, 05:58:48 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2011, 10:12:57 AM
Quote from: Kleves on March 26, 2011, 09:32:53 AM
Whoever wins, we lose. By all means, though, lets keep bombing stuff for some indeterminate reason, for some inderterminate length of time.
Funny fact: Europeans like to hate America for bombing stuff in a "Leeroy Jankins" manner and selling their inconsiderate agression and ramptant greed for oil as championing freedom
And now Europe does the same. And -even more funnily- they do it over a country with lotsa' oil, and they call it defending lifes and freedom. And america-haters applaud them for it. Go figure.
Why are you being an unethical retard? Does it make you feel "smart" or "cool" to be cynical? You are a useless lower class representative of a useless nation. You are a cannon fodder, not one of the movers and shakers of the world - noone here is. At least I can understand why some Americans think it is only right to drop bombs if it is in America's interest - and ethics of this be damned. Can't understand why you take this view, though.
:lol:
I ALMOST started replying, then realized this passion of yours is no different from, say, the one where you defended the rape case of that director, or many other stances you took.
At least, my cannon fodder views are in line and consistent with my view of the world and what I perceive to be the interests of my country, and the culture I feel to be part of.
Whereas your views are taken from what is the Issue Of The Day in your gay circles.
So preventing mass slaughter of civilian populace is not in your country's interest? Spoken like a true nationalist Orban follower. The Soviets did not rape you enough in 1956.
Why did the Poles charge panzers with cavalry btw? While stabbing at the armor with their lances didn't they once stop to think about how stupid they were?
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2011, 03:27:14 AM
Why did the Poles charge panzers with cavalry btw? While stabbing at the armor with their lances didn't they once stop to think about how stupid they were?
:D
The new poster "child" of the rebellion
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg845.imageshack.us%2Fimg845%2F6152%2F1000x.jpg&hash=fc6c6e255b0c89b178fdda1dee9ab73ffa33a04d)
Note among his collection of lucky charms, 23mm AA round, fuse of a 106mm type 63 rocket and handcuffs, kinky stuff... ;)
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2011, 03:25:40 AM
So preventing mass slaughter of civilian populace is not in your country's interest? Spoken like a true nationalist Orban follower. The Soviets did not rape you enough in 1956.
Says the guy who is busy being a rich gay lawyer, instead of helping the countless millions of civilians routinely terrorized and massacred on a daily basis in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2011, 03:25:40 AM
So preventing mass slaughter of civilian populace is not in your country's interest? Spoken like a true nationalist Orban follower. The Soviets did not rape you enough in 1956.
Preventing mass slaughter of foreign civilians = humanitarianism.
A country taking action in its own best interest = realpolitic.
See any difference there?
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2011, 03:25:40 AM
So preventing mass slaughter of civilian populace is not in your country's interest? Spoken like a true nationalist Orban follower. The Soviets did not rape you enough in 1956.
'
Trololol :lol:
Quote from: Slargos on March 27, 2011, 06:29:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2011, 03:25:40 AM
So preventing mass slaughter of civilian populace is not in your country's interest? Spoken like a true nationalist Orban follower. The Soviets did not rape you enough in 1956.
'
Trololol :lol:
I really must congratulate Mart in firing up Zoltan.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOoXiC.gif&hash=c30a47ada1bc6ca5fe73476e5f6bde7728d77746)
Something to please the eye...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg834.imageshack.us%2Fimg834%2F5143%2Fx800z.jpg&hash=245f82cd1c91de95fd7ad8215d9f2b306a0925dc)
Btw, she is French...:perv:
Enjoy them while they last. Soon, there will be none left.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2011, 07:03:49 AM
Quote from: Slargos on March 27, 2011, 06:29:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2011, 03:25:40 AM
So preventing mass slaughter of civilian populace is not in your country's interest? Spoken like a true nationalist Orban follower. The Soviets did not rape you enough in 1956.
'
Trololol :lol:
I really must congratulate Mart in firing up Zoltan.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOoXiC.gif&hash=c30a47ada1bc6ca5fe73476e5f6bde7728d77746)
I think you may have meant this one....
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lh5lc0xkcT1qbylvso1_400.gif&hash=b3eb02850b7d2e16a7c120f6735e703ef18900c5)
:lmfao:
You guys.. :hug:
Quote from: jamesww on March 26, 2011, 04:30:43 PM
Perhaps the most upsetting story I've seen coming out of Libya:
Gaddafi media minders/thugs snatch 'rape victim' away from foreign journalists:
Watch the video, Channel 4 news:
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/260311/clipid/260311_LibyaMiller_26 (http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/260311/clipid/260311_LibyaMiller_26)
Very brave woman, though she's probably 'signed her own death warrant'.
I saw this on Sky News (their reporter's the woman who keeps asking 'where are you taking her?'). It's one of the most distressing reports I've seen.
QuoteNPR was reporting that the rebs had captured/recaptured some town from the Kaddafites. Hadn't heard of the town before, Amujibad or something.
Ajdabiya? The fighting's been going on there for most of the last week. Apparently after that the government forces seemed to lose spirit. Last I heard the rebels had pushed on to Brega, though I'm not sure how true that is.
Can't both sides be bombed simultaniously and then the French take over administrating the place? :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2011, 06:27:57 PM
Quote from: jamesww on March 26, 2011, 04:30:43 PM
Perhaps the most upsetting story I've seen coming out of Libya:
Gaddafi media minders/thugs snatch 'rape victim' away from foreign journalists:
Watch the video, Channel 4 news:
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/260311/clipid/260311_LibyaMiller_26 (http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/260311/clipid/260311_LibyaMiller_26)
Very brave woman, though she's probably 'signed her own death warrant'.
I saw this on Sky News (their reporter's the woman who keeps asking 'where are you taking her?'). It's one of the most distressing reports I've seen.
Yes, just about had me in tears, the only other event thats moved me as much has been the stoicism shown by many of the Japanese tsunami survivors.
Sue Turton, formerly Channel 4 news, has just filed a piece for al-Jazeera on instances of rape and disappearances in newly liberated Ajdabiya. I don't have a weblink, but its been shown in the first 1/2 hour of their rolling news coverage.
Quote from: jamesww on March 27, 2011, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2011, 06:27:57 PM
Quote from: jamesww on March 26, 2011, 04:30:43 PM
Perhaps the most upsetting story I've seen coming out of Libya:
Gaddafi media minders/thugs snatch 'rape victim' away from foreign journalists:
Watch the video, Channel 4 news:
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/260311/clipid/260311_LibyaMiller_26 (http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/260311/clipid/260311_LibyaMiller_26)
Very brave woman, though she's probably 'signed her own death warrant'.
I saw this on Sky News (their reporter's the woman who keeps asking 'where are you taking her?'). It's one of the most distressing reports I've seen.
Yes, just about had me in tears, the only other event thats moved me as much has been the stoicism shown by many of the Japanese tsunami survivors.
FOX News is reporting that derspiess doesn't believe she's worth the $569,000 per Tomahawk.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2011, 09:45:12 PM
Quote from: jamesww on March 27, 2011, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2011, 06:27:57 PM
Quote from: jamesww on March 26, 2011, 04:30:43 PM
Perhaps the most upsetting story I've seen coming out of Libya:
Gaddafi media minders/thugs snatch 'rape victim' away from foreign journalists:
Watch the video, Channel 4 news:
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/260311/clipid/260311_LibyaMiller_26 (http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/260311/clipid/260311_LibyaMiller_26)
Very brave woman, though she's probably 'signed her own death warrant'.
I saw this on Sky News (their reporter's the woman who keeps asking 'where are you taking her?'). It's one of the most distressing reports I've seen.
Yes, just about had me in tears, the only other event thats moved me as much has been the stoicism shown by many of the Japanese tsunami survivors.
FOX News is reporting that derspiess doesn't believe she's worth the $569,000 per Tomahawk.
Which is nonsense. It's more than worth it to shut her up for good.
Quote from: Slargos on March 27, 2011, 09:47:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2011, 09:45:12 PM
Quote from: jamesww on March 27, 2011, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2011, 06:27:57 PM
Quote from: jamesww on March 26, 2011, 04:30:43 PM
Perhaps the most upsetting story I've seen coming out of Libya:
Gaddafi media minders/thugs snatch 'rape victim' away from foreign journalists:
Watch the video, Channel 4 news:
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/260311/clipid/260311_LibyaMiller_26 (http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/260311/clipid/260311_LibyaMiller_26)
Very brave woman, though she's probably 'signed her own death warrant'.
I saw this on Sky News (their reporter's the woman who keeps asking 'where are you taking her?'). It's one of the most distressing reports I've seen.
Yes, just about had me in tears, the only other event thats moved me as much has been the stoicism shown by many of the Japanese tsunami survivors.
FOX News is reporting that derspiess doesn't believe she's worth the $569,000 per Tomahawk.
Which is nonsense. It's more than worth it to shut her up for good.
That was horrible, I'm ashamed I laughed at that. :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2011, 09:45:12 PM
FOX News is reporting that derspiess doesn't believe she's worth the $569,000 per Tomahawk.
Which is regrettably true. I would rather give that money to teh teacherz.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2011, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2011, 09:45:12 PM
FOX News is reporting that derspiess doesn't believe she's worth the $569,000 per Tomahawk.
Which is regrettably true. I would rather give that money to teh teacherz.
I dream of the day schools get plenty of funding and the military has to have a bake sale :weep:
Decisive battle shaping up for Sirte?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/28/libya-sirte-gaddafi-loyalists-rebels
QuoteLibya's army is pouring reinforcements into Muammar Gaddafi's strategic hometown of Sirte against rebels advancing from the east under cover of UN-mandated air strikes.
Units of regular soldiers in jeeps mounted with heavy machine guns were driving towards the town on Monday as the frontline moved ominously closer to a key regime stronghold for what could turn out to be the decisive battle of the war.
On Sunday night at least 18 large explosions were heard in or near Sirte, apparently part of the coalition's campaign of attacking air defences and other military targets. But reports that the city had fallen to the Benghazi-based rebels were evidently wrong – and fuelled Libyan fury at the satellite TV channels that claimed it had.
It was firmly in government hands and its people defiant. "I saw death with my own eyes," said Fawzi Imish, whose house and every other in his seafront street had its windows shattered by a Tomahawk missile strike in the early hours of the morning. "It was just intended to terrify people. And if the rebels come here, we will receive them with bullets."
Sirte, where the young Gaddafi was educated, is halfway between the rebel east and the area controlled by the regime along the Mediterranean coastal highway. In the 1980s the Libyan leader famously drew a "line of death" across the Gulf of Sirte in brazen challenge to the US.
If the rebels took the city it would be a severe blow, weakening Gaddafi's position in the centre of Libya and the road would be open for an advance on Tripoli 280 miles away.
Crowds gathered in central Martyrs Square to chant pro-regime slogans and fire bursts of machine-gun fire into the air – that bizarre Libyan ritual of celebrating reverses and expressing determination to resist. But there were signs of anxiety when an aircraft was heard far overhead. Many shops were shut.
Libyan forces are deployed outside Sirte and nervousness is evident at the makeshift roadblocks manned by police or militiamen at intervals of just a few hundred yards in some places. To the west the soldiers at a mobile radar battery – part of the country's now battered air defence system – looked especially apprehensive.
In early afternoon a convoy of 15 Toyota Land Cruisers carrying groups of fresh-looking regular soldiers moved east from Misrata where some rebels are still holding out. But there were no signs of heavy armour or artillery – perhaps because these have been easily hit in coalition air strikes in the battles for Ajdabiya, Ras Lanuf and Brega over the past few days.
Lightly armed infantrymen, backed up by militiamen and civilians driving mud-smeared cars armed en masse by the government will be a far more elusive target for allied pilots if they are involved in a battle for a sizeable town or skirmishes along the coastal road.
Residents of Sirte's beachfront area protested angrily at an attack on Saturday night which killed three men picnicking on a breakwater surrounding a small harbour, packed with wooden fishing boats abandoned by their Egyptian and Tunisian crews when the uprising began last month. Fragments of the bomb were embedded in a shallow crater at the end of the stone jetty – which had no conceivable military use.
On Khartoum Street, where one of the dead men lived, a woman could be heard wailing inconsolably as grim-faced relatives arrived to pay their respects.
"We are just civilians, there is nothing military here, only fishing boats and ordinary people," complained Ahmed al-Hashr, whose nephew Faraj died in the same attack.
Anger and fear are accompanied by flashes of defiance. "At first people were scared of the raids, but now they have got used to them," said Asra Salem, a 15-year-old at al-Manara girls' school, where many pupils stayed away after another night of attacks. "We just stay at home and pray and read the Qur'an," said Ghada Imrayet, recently returned from a long stay in Newcastle.
"Inshallah [God willing] we will defend our city, our homes and our coast," shouted an emotional Abdel-Adim al-Karam, a sound engineer whose small children were terrified by the bombing.
Khamis Mohammed, a Sirte University lecturer, accused Nato of deliberately targeting innocent civilians and supporting "mercenaries and terrorists" in the east.
"Our grandfathers fought Mussolini and we will fight and live free in our land," he said. "If Nato really cared about civilians it and the UN would send a mission here to find out who is really the aggressor."
Hatred for the Benghazi rebels has been fuelled by an incident on Sunday when pro-Gaddafi loyalists taking part in a peace march were confronted near Bin Jawad and three of them reportedly shot and killed, despite carrying white flags and olive branches. But according to some accounts armed volunteers were in one bus at the rear of the convoy.
Al-Jazeera is reporting Libya's foreign minister, Mussa Kussa, has crossed the Libyian-Tunisia border in a convoy of three cars.
My wild speculation is he's seeking asylum or has defected. :gasp:
QuoteFOX News is reporting that derspiess doesn't believe she's worth the $569,000 per Tomahawk.
We need cheaper weapons.
$122million supersonic top of the range fighter jets? What good are those against jihadists and other miscellanious third worlders? Lets be having a slow, sturdy, cheap and cheerful plane please.
President Obama speaking live about Libya.
The spice must flow.
Quote
Qatar marketing rebel oil from Libya
* Rebel official sees oil shipments within a week
* Says rebel-held eastern Libya has no money problems
* Sees Brega terminal operating again for domestic supply
By Alexander Dziadosz
BENGHAZI, Libya, March 27 (Reuters) - A senior Libyan rebel official said on Sunday Gulf oil producer Qatar had agreed to market crude oil produced from east Libyan fields which are no longer in the control of Muammar Gaddafi.
"We contacted the oil company of Qatar and thankfully they agreed to take all the oil that we wish to export and market this oil for us," said Ali Tarhouni, a rebel official in charge of economic, financial and oil matters.
"Our next shipment will be in less than a week," Tarhouni told reporters in the rebel-held eastern city of Benghazi.
State-owned Qatar Petroleum said it had no comment.
Small, energy-rich Qatar became the first Arab nation to begin patrolling a U.N. backed no-fly zone on Friday and has urged Gaddafi to quit to avoid more bloodshed.
Libya produced about 1.6 million barrels of oil per day before the crisis, or almost 2 percent of world output. Most of the oil is in the east but sanctions and the lack of a marketing operation have stopped the rebels selling it abroad.
The north African country relies heavily on oil exports, which pay the state salaries on which most families depend.
Tarhouni said output from east Libya oil fields that rebels controlled was running at about 100,000 to 130,000 barrels per day (bpd), which could be increased to 300,000 bpd.
Rebel fighters pushed west towards Gaddafi's stronghold of Sirte on Sunday after routing his forces in the town of Ajdabiyah with the aid of Western air strikes.
The advance puts the rebels back in control of all the main oil terminals in the eastern half of Libya, namely Es Sider, Ras Lanuf, Brega, Zueitina and Tobruk.
Tarhouni said he had asked the main oil company at Brega, 75 km west of Ajdabiyah, to resume operations within 24 hours. The terminal would produce liquid natural gas for domestic use for now, he said.
OIL STOCKS BUILD IN TOBRUK
Officials at eastern oil company AGOCO have told Reuters that most of the oil produced in the east is piped to the terminal in Tobruk in the far east of Libya.
Output at its fields, including Nafoora, Sarir and Misla in the Sirte Basin, fell in recent weeks as an absence of shipments since early March led to a build-up of stocks at Tobruk.
Tarhouni, a U.S. based academic and exile opposition figure, was designated last week by the Benghazi-based national council to steer its financial and oil policy.
He said the rebel leadership had set up an escrow account monitored by auditors that would be used to receive revenues from oil sales.
The rebels also plan to take out loans backed by Libya's sovereign wealth fund, he said.
"We would keep the fund frozen until the entire country is liberated," said Tarhouni. "Instead, what we will do is take loans backed by the sovereign fund."
He said he saw no serious liquidity problems for the rebels, who were well placed in terms of foreign currency reserves. (Writing by Edmund Blair and Tom Pfeiffer in Cairo; Editing by Elizabeth Fullerton and David Holmes)
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE72Q0DE20110327?sp=true
Now they have a revenue stream, a central bank in Benghazi and international recognition from a number of states including Arab ones.
Edit: Oh yeah, and they can market the oil outside the constraints of the sanctions placed on the government's entities.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 28, 2011, 06:34:18 PM
The spice must flow.
.....
Now they have a revenue stream, a central bank in Benghazi and international recognition from a number of states including Arab ones.
I think strictly its only two countries recognising the Benghaza council, first France and now Qatar, it may be that some GCC members follow shortly.
When Qatar writes out a check to the rebels, whose name will they put on it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2011, 06:37:25 PM
When Qatar writes out a check to the rebels, whose name will they put on it?
Rebel Alliance
Quote from: Tyr on March 28, 2011, 06:25:53 PM
QuoteFOX News is reporting that derspiess doesn't believe she's worth the $569,000 per Tomahawk.
We need cheaper weapons.
$122million supersonic top of the range fighter jets? What good are those against jihadists and other miscellanious third worlders? Lets be having a slow, sturdy, cheap and cheerful plane please.
Read Warthog and The Close Air Support Debate (http://www.usni.org/store/books/aircraft-reference/warthog-and-close-air-support-debate), and you'll hate the Chair Force even more.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2011, 07:32:52 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 28, 2011, 06:25:53 PM
QuoteFOX News is reporting that derspiess doesn't believe she's worth the $569,000 per Tomahawk.
We need cheaper weapons.
$122million supersonic top of the range fighter jets? What good are those against jihadists and other miscellanious third worlders? Lets be having a slow, sturdy, cheap and cheerful plane please.
Read Warthog and The Close Air Support Debate (http://www.usni.org/store/books/aircraft-reference/warthog-and-close-air-support-debate), and you'll hate the Chair Force even more.
Yeah, unfortunately, the people who usually rise to leadership are the fighter jocks. I sympathize more with bombers and CAS (and nowadays, more UAVs) myself.
Our current Chief of Staff has a transport pilot/SpecOps background, so hopefully things might move (slowly, as always) a bit away from fighter silliness.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 28, 2011, 08:34:00 PMOur current Chief of Staff has a transport pilot/SpecOps background, so hopefully things might move (slowly, as always) a bit away from fighter silliness.
The Pentagon, the defense industry and their little bitches in Congress have more of a say in the matter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2011, 07:32:52 PM
Read Warthog and The Close Air Support Debate (http://www.usni.org/store/books/aircraft-reference/warthog-and-close-air-support-debate), and you'll hate the Chair Force even more.
This is totally off-topic, but some of us actually
like the Warthog. It's annoying how they automatically assume everyone's just gonna agree that it's ugly.
So, how about Obama's speech? Good, bad, so-so?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 28, 2011, 09:26:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2011, 07:32:52 PM
Read Warthog and The Close Air Support Debate (http://www.usni.org/store/books/aircraft-reference/warthog-and-close-air-support-debate), and you'll hate the Chair Force even more.
This is totally off-topic, but some of us actually like the Warthog. It's annoying how they automatically assume everyone's just gonna agree that it's ugly.
The book is about the Pentagon's and Air Force's constant attempts to kill the project despite the fundamental need for CAS and as one of the most successful air platforms ever. Dickhead.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 28, 2011, 09:31:14 PM
So, how about Obama's speech? Good, bad, so-so?
He gave a speech laying out the administration's position. It told the informed something they already knew and the ignorant something they weren't paying attention to.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 28, 2011, 09:26:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2011, 07:32:52 PM
Read Warthog and The Close Air Support Debate (http://www.usni.org/store/books/aircraft-reference/warthog-and-close-air-support-debate), and you'll hate the Chair Force even more.
This is totally off-topic, but some of us actually like the Warthog. It's annoying how they automatically assume everyone's just gonna agree that it's ugly.
Actually, I've always thought the A-10 was pretty. :blush:
The sad reality is, though, even if someone in the Pentagon got it in their brain to restart production of the A-10, the defense contractor would likely be all "zomg, it needs all these fancy new avionics packages and what-not, will only cost $500 billion plz".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2011, 09:32:28 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 28, 2011, 09:26:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2011, 07:32:52 PM
Read Warthog and The Close Air Support Debate (http://www.usni.org/store/books/aircraft-reference/warthog-and-close-air-support-debate), and you'll hate the Chair Force even more.
This is totally off-topic, but some of us actually like the Warthog. It's annoying how they automatically assume everyone's just gonna agree that it's ugly.
The book is about the Pentagon's and Air Force's constant attempts to kill the project despite the fundamental need for CAS and as one of the most successful air platforms ever. Dickhead.
Banana isn't worried about details like that as long as the plane is pretty.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 28, 2011, 11:07:59 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 28, 2011, 09:26:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2011, 07:32:52 PM
Read Warthog and The Close Air Support Debate (http://www.usni.org/store/books/aircraft-reference/warthog-and-close-air-support-debate), and you'll hate the Chair Force even more.
This is totally off-topic, but some of us actually like the Warthog. It's annoying how they automatically assume everyone's just gonna agree that it's ugly.
Actually, I've always thought the A-10 was pretty. :blush:
The sad reality is, though, even if someone in the Pentagon got it in their brain to restart production of the A-10, the defense contractor would likely be all "zomg, it needs all these fancy new avionics packages and what-not, will only cost $500 billion plz".
I've felt the same thing about the NATO standard frigates we are sending to the gulf of aden to chase pirates. Exceptionally expensive hyper advanced ships capable of hunting akula's and typhoons and beating off backfire and cruise missile attacks. I can't help thinking a WWII corvette with a good communications suite, good living quarters, a good cook, a few heavy weapons and a helicopter hanger would do just job for 1/10 the price and slightly better.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 28, 2011, 09:31:14 PM
So, how about Obama's speech? Good, bad, so-so?
He added to his routine bashing of President Bush some bashing of President Clinton. Otherwise it was his usual incoherence on display.
I only caught a snip of it, but my impression is that the multilateral tail is wagging the mission dog.
The A-10 is actually undergoing a modernization/SLEP program. Going to be the A-10C pretty soon - adding modern avionics, integrated PGM delivery capability.
Quote from: Tyr on March 28, 2011, 06:25:53 PM
QuoteFOX News is reporting that derspiess doesn't believe she's worth the $569,000 per Tomahawk.
We need cheaper weapons.
$122million supersonic top of the range fighter jets? What good are those against jihadists and other miscellanious third worlders? Lets be having a slow, sturdy, cheap and cheerful plane please.
I've been thinking the same thing for years now. Every war of the last few decades has been a quick and overwhelming air campaign to knock out any AA and moving vehicle larger than a VW Beetle, followed by mop up and potentially counter-insurgency warfare. People like the Serbs have more sense than to keep fighting after their capability to effectively resist is gone, but the muds they continue sniping and bombing. What use is a MBT against insurgents? A Raptor against 3 guys in a Toyota with a mounted recoilless rifle?
A vast fleet of A-10s and relatively cheap explosives seems to be where it's at. Paying half a million dollars to kill a few arabs is too fucking expensive.
Quote#
1012: Libya's state news agency, Jana, is reporting that Col Gaddafi's son, Khamis Gaddafi arrived at his father's Tripoli compound late Monday evening, according to BBC Monitoring.
Franco is alive again.
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2011, 07:41:19 AM
The A-10 is actually undergoing a modernization/SLEP program. Going to be the A-10C pretty soon - adding modern avionics, integrated PGM delivery capability.
Good to hear; damn good airplane for ground attack and close support. Like a super helicopter gunship. I also like the way they look. I've seen them fly over - damn cool and sinister look.
Hell, just mount a bunch of BVR missiles on an AWACS and have it flying overwatch. Don't need a bunch of billion dollar stealth jets to shoot down 30 year old east-block aircraft. :hmm:
Only thing that annoyed me about Brak's speech was that they aren't going to tap into the seized money. Every expense should be paid out of that fund.
Fuck Libya.
:rolleyes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42318419/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
QuoteLibyan woman sued by men she alleges raped her, official says
NBC, msnbc.com and news services
updated 1 hour 45 minutes ago
A Libyan lawyer who claimed she was raped by troops loyal to leader Moammar Gadhafi is being sued by the four men under investigation, Libya's main government spokesman said Tuesday.
Moussa Ibrahim told NBC News that the men were filing a defamation case against Iman al-Obeidi, who made headlines when she went to a Tripoli hotel used by Western journalists to tell them about the alleged attack.
She was bundled away by government minders despite efforts by journalists to protect her.
Ibrahim said the four men had been arrested in connection with the allegations.
"I heard that the attorney-general brought her in for questioning because she is now not just the accuser, she is the accused. There is a case against her," Ibrahim told journalists earlier, Sky News reported.
He claimed al-Obeidi had "not come up with anything substantial."
"She says four people kidnapped and raped her, one of them is the son of someone in the state. That is hardly political, the son of someone in the state is a human being," Ibrahim said, according to Sky.
"Now the four guys are having a case filed against her because instead of going to a police station and filing a case against them she went to the media and exposed their names," he added. "Now their honor is tainted, their families black-named and this in the Islamic law is a very grave offense."
Sky News reported she was facing possible criminal charges, but Ibrahim told NBC News that she had not been charged by the government.
Held hostage?
Al-Obeidi's parents said in interviews on Al-Jazeera TV aired Monday that their daughter was being held hostage at the Libyan leader's compound in Tripoli, countering government claims that she had been set free after the hotel incident.
They also denied allegations by Ibrahim that al-Obeidi was a prostitute.
The parents said al-Obeidi was a lawyer and that she was now being held at Gadhafi's compound in Bab Al-Aziziya in the capital.
It was unclear where the parents spoke from and Al-Jazeera did not provide their names.
"I don't feel ashamed, instead my head is up high," the mother told Al-Jazeera, saying her daughter "broke the barrier that no other man could break" by coming forward about her rape.
In the Al-Jazeera footage, the teary-eyed mother held the Libyan opposition flag around her shoulders and said al-Obeidi was "a hostage, taken by the tyrants." She also pleaded for help from the "youth of Tripoli."
The mother said she received a phone call Monday from an unidentified caller, purportedly from the Gadhafi camp, telling her al-Obeidi was held at the Tripoli compound and asking her to instruct her daughter to change the rape claim in return for freedom and other benefits.
"Whatever you ask for, you will get: build a new house or get the money," the mother said the caller offered.
Quote
4:03pm
Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel-Hamid reports from Ras Lanuf that the news from Bin Jawad is that the city has fallen to pro-Gaddafi forces, and opposition fighters are now retreating to Ras Lanuf.
She also says that the opposition's military commanders are complaining that their fighters "do not want to be" disciplined or act in a structured way.
Furthermore, the rebels' supply lines are stretched.
4:50pm
The Associated Press reports that some opposition fighters who are fleeing Bin Jawad are shouting "Sarkozy, where are you?" as they head down the road back to Ras Lanuf.
LOL
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 27, 2011, 10:45:15 PM
That was horrible, I'm ashamed I laughed at that. :blush:
Give in to the power of the dork side. :hmm:
Great surprise. These "rebels" are little more than armed arab rabble, and little more effective in achieving their goals than european AFA style anarchists.
A drunken horde of football hooligans would've done far more damage under the cover of NATO airstrikes than this haphazard gaggle of untermenschen.
The Lion of the North awakes! :o
http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/9146-sweden-sends-eight-fighter-jets-to-libya
QuoteSweden sends eight fighter jets to Libya
Sweden's prime minister said Tuesday the government would ask parliament to contribute eight Gripen fighter jets to Libya, but insisted they not be involved in ground strikes.
"The government has decided today ... to put to parliament the proposal to participate with JAS Gripen (jets) in the international military operation in Libya under the leadership of NATO," Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said in parliament.
The prime minister said an official request from NATO for a Swedish contribution had come earlier Tuesday.
Reinfeldt stressed the Swedish jets would be sent only to enforce the international no-fly zone and "would not be allowed to participate in bombing ground targets."
Sweden Fights On?
And the front moves back east again...
QuoteLibyan rebels retreating after Gadhafi onslaught
By RYAN LUCAS, Associated Press
BIN JAWWAD, Libya – Libyan government tanks and rockets have driven back rebels who attempted an assault on Moammar Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte. Opposition fighters fleeing in a panicked scramble pleaded for international airstrikes that never came.
Gadhafi's forces drove the rebels out of Bin Jawwad, a hamlet east of Sirte, on Tuesday. Cars and trucks of the retreating rebels filled both lanes of the highway east to the oil port of Ras Lanouf.
Some fleeing rebels shouted "Sarkozy, where are you?" — a reference to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, one of the strongest supporters of airstrikes against Gadhafi's forces.
There were no international airstrikes in Bin Jawwad during the hourslong battle there, possibly because of overcast skies.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
BIN JAWWAD, Libya (AP) — Libyan government tanks and rockets blunted a rebel assault on Moammar Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte on Tuesday and drove back the ragtag army of irregulars, even as world leaders prepared to debate the country's future in London.
Rockets and tank fire sent Libya's rebel volunteers in a panicked scramble away from the front lines, before the opposition was able to bring up truck mounted rocket launchers of their own and return fire.
The latest rebel setback emphasizes the see-saw nature of this conflict and how the opposition is still no match for the superior firepower and organization of Gadhafi's forces, despite an international campaign of deadly airstrikes.
The two sides traded salvos over the small hamlet of Bin Jawwad amid the thunderous crash of rockets and artillery shells as plumes of smoke erupted in the town. The steady drum of heavy machine gun fire and the pop of small arms could also be heard above the din.
"There aren't a lot of us in Bin Jawwad right now," said Faisal Ali, a 20-year-old-rebel who had retreated from the town. "If (Gadhafi) has enough firepower and forces using tanks, he will surely take over Bin Jawwad," he added, noting that the rebels' special forces, one of their few trained units, had not yet retreated.
A U.N.-mandated no-fly zone and campaign of strikes by the U.S. and its allies helped rebel forces regain territory lost over the past week, when they were on the brink of defeat by government forces.
It is unclear, however, if the international support exists for the deepening of the air campaign to the wholesale destruction of Gadhafi's heavy weaponry that would be necessary to allow any further rebel advance.
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said Tuesday there are plenty of "non-military means at our disposal" to oust Gadhafi.
France, which has been at the forefront of the international campaign against Gadhafi in Libya, struck a more forceful tone, however, with the defense minister suggesting the strikes could go beyond their mandate of just protecting civilians.
"We, the French and English, we consider that we must obtain more" than the end of shooting at civilians, said Defense Minister Gerard Longuet on France-Inter radio. He also said Libyan politicians could be targeted since they gave orders to the military.
In London, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Arab League, the African Union and around 40 foreign ministers were scheduled to join talks over the future of Libya and to ratchet up pressure on Gadhafi.
Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said several nations planned to put forward a deal which would propose a cease-fire, exile for Gadhafi and a framework for talks, between Libya's tribal leaders and opposition figures, on the country's future.
In a sign of emerging ties between the opposition and the international community, a senior U.S. administration official said it would soon send an envoy to Libya to meet with leaders of the rebels.
The official said former U.S. envoy to Tripoli, Chris Stevens, will travel to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in the coming days to establish better ties with groups seeking to oust the longtime Libyan leader. The move doesn't constitute formal recognition of the opposition.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning, as Clinton met with Libyan opposition envoy Mahmoud Jibril in London.
In an open letter to the international community, meanwhile, Gadhafi called for a halt to the "monstrous assault" on Libya and maintained that that the rebels were supported by the al-Qaida terrorist network.
"What is happening now is providing a cover for al-Qaida through airstrikes and missiles to enable al-Qaida to control North Africa and turn it into a new Afghanistan," he said, accusing the international community of carrying out genocide against the Libyans.
The rebels remain woefully outgunned by Gadhafi's forces and it is unclear how they can take the stronghold of Sirte without further aggressive international air support.
NATO has insisted that it was seeking only to protect civilians and not to give air cover to an opposition march. But that line looked set to become even more blurred. The airstrikes are clearly the only way the rebels bent on overthrowing Gadhafi are going to continue their push to the capital.
There was growing criticism from Russia and other countries that the international air campaign is overstepping the bounds of the U.N. resolution that authorized it. The complaints came at a critical transition in the campaign from a U.S. to a NATO command. That threatens to hamper the operation, as some of the 28 NATO member nations plan to limit their participation to air patrols, rather than attacks on ground targets.
Russia's envoy to NATO, Ambassador Dmitry Rogozin urged the alliance on Tuesday not to bomb Libyan ground targets when it assumes command of the campaign, saying NATO should restrict itself only to enforcing the arms embargo and the no-fly zone.
The rebel advance reached Nawfaliyah some 60 miles (100 kilometers) from Sirte on Monday, but the next day they were driven back to the hamlet of Bin Jawwad, a few dozen miles (kilometers) to the east.
In a scene reminiscent of the rebels' rout last week, panicked volunteers jumped into their pickup trucks and attempted to speed away from the bombardment, kicking up dust clouds and choking the narrow coastal highway in a mad scramble of vehicles.
Sirte is dominated by members of the Libyan leader's Gadhadhfa tribe and was used as a second capital by Gadhafi. Its loss would be a symbolic blow and open the way to the capital Tripoli.
"This is their last defensive line they will do everything to protect it," explained rebel fighter Twate Monsuri, 26. "It's not Gadhafi attacking us, he's just defending himself now."
Fighting in such a densely populated area is likely to complicate the rebels' advance and add to the ambiguity of the NATO-led campaign, authorized by a Security Council resolution to take all necessary measures to protect civilians.
Gadhafi forces continued to besiege Misrata, the main rebel holdout in the west and Libya's third-largest city. Residents reported shelling by government tanks of residential areas, with three people killed.
The U.S. Navy reported that two of its aircraft and a guided missile destroyer attacked a number of Libyan coast guard vessels that were "firing indiscriminately" at merchant ships in the port of Misrata, rendering them inoperable.
One of Libya's top officials, meanwhile, abruptly made a "private visit" to Tunisia late Monday, according to the official news agency there.
Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim in Tripoli insisted on Tuesday that Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa's visit was not a defection.
Less that two days ago did we have news report about how the pro- Gaddafi forces was falling apart and the road to Tripoli was open, now we are back in Bin Jawwad where the rebel advance was stopped the first time some two weeks ago. Maybe a bit to much wishful thinking from some journalists...
Quote from: Slargos on March 29, 2011, 10:24:54 AM
Great surprise. These "rebels" are little more than armed arab rabble, and little more effective in achieving their goals than european AFA style anarchists.
A drunken horde of football hooligans would've done far more damage under the cover of NATO airstrikes than this haphazard gaggle of untermenschen.
This little Libya debacle can best be described as two mobs of Arabs chasing each other around the desert while America bombs the shit out of it.
I think it is time to write off the Libyan revolt and let nature take its course. Try again in Syria or Somalia.
Quote from: Fireblade on March 29, 2011, 10:25:47 AM
The Lion of the North awakes! :o
http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/9146-sweden-sends-eight-fighter-jets-to-libya (http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/9146-sweden-sends-eight-fighter-jets-to-libya)
QuoteSweden sends eight fighter jets to Libya
Sweden's prime minister said Tuesday the government would ask parliament to contribute eight Gripen fighter jets to Libya, but insisted they not be involved in ground strikes.
"The government has decided today ... to put to parliament the proposal to participate with JAS Gripen (jets) in the international military operation in Libya under the leadership of NATO," Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said in parliament.
The prime minister said an official request from NATO for a Swedish contribution had come earlier Tuesday.
Reinfeldt stressed the Swedish jets would be sent only to enforce the international no-fly zone and "would not be allowed to participate in bombing ground targets."
Sweden Fights On?
The giant baby wants to send fighters that we can't afford to keep in the air, to enforce a no-fly zone after the Libyans have already stranded all their aircraft.
Excellent.
Fucking pathetic. They deserve to perish.
Dude, it's an army of Spelluses. :)
Apparently Sweden can't figure out how to work quotes either. FUCKING PARENTHESES HOW DO THEY WORK.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 10:37:28 AM
Dude, it's an army of Spelluses. :)
Look at those fucking hipsters.
Quote from: Fireblade on March 29, 2011, 10:37:41 AM
Apparently Sweden can't figure out how to work quotes either. FUCKING PARENTHESES HOW DO THEY WORK.
:blush:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 10:39:08 AM
Look at those fucking hipsters.
The front line advanced almost to Sirte before the rebel attack fell apart due to squabbling over whether Tripolitanian labneh was better than Cyrenaican labneh.
Quote from: Slargos on March 29, 2011, 10:36:37 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on March 29, 2011, 10:25:47 AM
The Lion of the North awakes!
Sweden Fights On?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Fgmt_swedenfightson.jpg&hash=96832559db3e38afb80206eaac9f493c2a1815b6)
:hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 10:42:52 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 10:39:08 AM
Look at those fucking hipsters.
The front line advanced almost to Sirte before the rebel attack fell apart due to squabbling over whether Tripolitanian labneh was better than Cyrenaican labneh.
Hey! Where did my Arcade Fire CD go?
Quote from: Habbaku on March 29, 2011, 10:46:48 AM
Quote from: Slargos on March 29, 2011, 10:36:37 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on March 29, 2011, 10:25:47 AM
The Lion of the North awakes!
Sweden Fights On?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Fgmt_swedenfightson.jpg&hash=96832559db3e38afb80206eaac9f493c2a1815b6)
:hmm:
We should design a game, a sequel if you will, covering Swedish military history from 1814 to 1848. We can call it..
Sweden Remains NeutralOr a game where you play Swedish industrialists and compete to see who can collaborate with the Nazis the most.
I agree. Finally, there'd be a consim that I could play and actually not lose for once. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Slargos on March 29, 2011, 10:24:54 AM
Great surprise. These "rebels" are little more than armed arab rabble, and little more effective in achieving their goals than european AFA style anarchists.
A drunken horde of football hooligans would've done far more damage under the cover of NATO airstrikes than this haphazard gaggle of untermenschen.
I agree.
There was big talk over how even the army there is organized on tribal grounds. How come none of the units switched sides en masse? Or is this also the level of discipline of an arab tyrant's army? Pathetic.
We're going to end up with Western boots on the ground in Libya soon. Not a question of it, but when, and who's a big enough sucker to take the initiative.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 10:47:19 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 10:42:52 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 10:39:08 AM
Look at those fucking hipsters.
The front line advanced almost to Sirte before the rebel attack fell apart due to squabbling over whether Tripolitanian labneh was better than Cyrenaican labneh.
Hey! Where did my Arcade Fire CD go?
Too mainstream.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
We're going to end up with Western boots on the ground in Libya soon. Not a question of it, but when, and who's a big enough sucker to take the initiative.
My bet is that Sarkozy will send his elite foreign mercenary death squads within a week.
I'm thinking France as well. So that means within like a month that Gadhafi will be in Paris and some old French guy will be caught crying again. :(
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
We're going to end up with Western boots on the ground in Libya soon. Not a question of it, but when, and who's a big enough sucker to take the initiative.
France. It remains to be seen who he suckers into it.
Probably not the US, besides a few "hush-hush" type operations.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
We're going to end up with Western boots on the ground in Libya soon. Not a question of it, but when, and who's a big enough sucker to take the initiative.
Why though? Why go in? It is an internal matter, and our airstrikes have proven ineffective. Even if NATO did go in it would probably be the fucked up stuff we had in the Balkans or Rhuanda.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 29, 2011, 11:04:15 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 10:47:19 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 10:42:52 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 10:39:08 AM
Look at those fucking hipsters.
The front line advanced almost to Sirte before the rebel attack fell apart due to squabbling over whether Tripolitanian labneh was better than Cyrenaican labneh.
Hey! Where did my Arcade Fire CD go?
Too mainstream.
:blush:
These kids and their rock and roll.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:10:03 AM
I'm thinking France as well. So that means within like a month that Gadhafi will be in Paris and some old French guy will be caught crying again. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.funnyfartsounds.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F07%2Fscary_man_crying.jpg&hash=757ed512ff1b1e3ddbed27a1094015fecd6db299)
:cry:
Yeah, that guy. OMG is he still alive? :o
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 29, 2011, 11:10:11 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
We're going to end up with Western boots on the ground in Libya soon. Not a question of it, but when, and who's a big enough sucker to take the initiative.
France. It remains to be seen who he suckers into it.
Probably not the US, besides a few "hush-hush" type operations.
Brits and Wops. With tokens from other useless NATO members.
Brilliant. The French will be conquered, the Italian tanks will only drive in reverse, and so the British will be left doing all the fucking work again. :mad:
According to the BBC, AC-130's are in action. I NEED GUN CAMERA FOOTAGE.
I :wub: Spectre and Spooky. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:15:11 AM
Brilliant. The French will be conquered, the Italian tanks will only drive in reverse, and so the British will be left doing all the fucking work again. :mad:
Maybe some Poles will get killed in the op and it'll be a win-win operation.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:15:11 AM
Brilliant. The French will be conquered, the Italian tanks will only drive in reverse, and so the British will be left doing all the fucking work again. :mad:
Aw crap, and that means we'll have to bail them out again. :(
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 29, 2011, 11:10:21 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
We're going to end up with Western boots on the ground in Libya soon. Not a question of it, but when, and who's a big enough sucker to take the initiative.
Why though? Why go in? It is an internal matter, and our airstrikes have proven ineffective. Even if NATO did go in it would probably be the fucked up stuff we had in the Balkans or Rhuanda.
Well yeah but Sarko would lose some huge face if he was to declare "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" when Ghadaffi's artillery was still shelling towns in unrest.
They have the choice of:
-keep pretending they are doing something in the air, for a couple of months, until the deadlock gets obvious and the public gets angry, France and allies appear to be weak.
-declare that their mission is over, and basically fuck all those crazy ragheads in the desert. Public goes angry, France and allies appear to be weak
-deploy ground troops, kill Ghadaffi and his crooks, then leave fast. Have their public go angry over the ensuing civil war amongst the other Libyan factions, showing France and allies as weak
-deploy ground troops, kill Ghadaffi and his crooks, maintain a presence, and hope for a miracle, that they will be able to stop further civil war massacres. Spend untold months with this. Prolong it until French elections, hope for the best. Then retreat, making the public relieved, and showing France and allies as weak
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 11:14:24 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 29, 2011, 11:10:11 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
We're going to end up with Western boots on the ground in Libya soon. Not a question of it, but when, and who's a big enough sucker to take the initiative.
France. It remains to be seen who he suckers into it.
Probably not the US, besides a few "hush-hush" type operations.
Brits and Wops. With tokens from other useless NATO members.
Not much from us. Word from the Chiefs of Staff here is that "the elastic has snapped". Avionics parts for the Tornados operating over Libya had to literally be DHLed from British stocks in Canada, and other aircraft have been cannibalised for this operation.
The army doubt they can sustain a commitment in Libya.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2011, 09:32:28 PM
The book is about the Pentagon's and Air Force's constant attempts to kill the project despite the fundamental need for CAS and as one of the most successful air platforms ever. Dickhead.
Quote from: sbr on March 28, 2011, 11:11:03 PM
Banana isn't worried about details like that as long as the plane is pretty.
I said it was off-topic, and I was commenting on the part of the description where they were talking about how "ugly" the A-10 is. So you both can go fuck yourselves, kthx.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
We're going to end up with Western boots on the ground in Libya soon. Not a question of it, but when, and who's a big enough sucker to take the initiative.
Sounds like the plan! What could possibly go wrong?? ;)
Quote from: Warspite on March 29, 2011, 11:24:57 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 11:14:24 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 29, 2011, 11:10:11 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
We're going to end up with Western boots on the ground in Libya soon. Not a question of it, but when, and who's a big enough sucker to take the initiative.
France. It remains to be seen who he suckers into it.
Probably not the US, besides a few "hush-hush" type operations.
Brits and Wops. With tokens from other useless NATO members.
Not much from us. Word from the Chiefs of Staff here is that "the elastic has snapped". Avionics parts for the Tornados operating over Libya had to literally be DHLed from British stocks in Canada, and other aircraft have been cannibalised for this operation.
The army doubt they can sustain a commitment in Libya.
That is just incredibly sad and pathetic.
The brits ran the world on a shoestring for a couple centuries.
I blame rock and/or roll.
Considering how sucky DHL is, I'm surprised the parts didn't end up in Texas.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:36:29 AM
I blame rock and/or roll.
I blame Rush (http://megaman.wikia.com/wiki/Rush). :contract:
Quote from: Warspite on March 29, 2011, 11:24:57 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 11:14:24 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 29, 2011, 11:10:11 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
We're going to end up with Western boots on the ground in Libya soon. Not a question of it, but when, and who's a big enough sucker to take the initiative.
France. It remains to be seen who he suckers into it.
Probably not the US, besides a few "hush-hush" type operations.
Brits and Wops. With tokens from other useless NATO members.
Not much from us. Word from the Chiefs of Staff here is that "the elastic has snapped". Avionics parts for the Tornados operating over Libya had to literally be DHLed from British stocks in Canada, and other aircraft have been cannibalised for this operation.
The army doubt they can sustain a commitment in Libya.
WTF this brakes my heart :weep:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 29, 2011, 11:37:55 AM
I blame Rush (http://megaman.wikia.com/wiki/Rush). :contract:
Megadittoes. :cool:
Vive la Légion!
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:49:40 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 29, 2011, 11:37:55 AM
I blame Rush (http://megaman.wikia.com/wiki/Rush). :contract:
Megadittoes. :cool:
Megadittoes? Is it 1994 all over again?
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 11:14:24 AM
Brits and Wops. With tokens from other useless NATO members.
Would it kill the Krauts to send a couple panzer divisions & maybe paint palm trees on their vehicles. They can replace the swastika with a happy face if they want.
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2011, 12:01:54 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 11:14:24 AM
Brits and Wops. With tokens from other useless NATO members.
Would it kill the Krauts to send a couple panzer divisions & maybe paint palm trees on their vehicles. They can replace the swastika with a happy face if they want.
Do they even have one panzer division?
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 11:14:17 AM
Yeah, that guy. OMG is he still alive? :o
I'm sure there are plenty who can fill in. I know that footage is supposed to evoke sympathy but it sort of has the opposite effect on me :ph34r:
FWIW, they usually show that as a reaction to the Krauts parading in Paris, but I read somewhere recently where the dude was in Toulon watching French troops embark for North Africa in 1940.
QuoteSize 89,785
Just awful germany, just awful. Pussies.
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2011, 12:01:54 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 11:14:24 AM
Brits and Wops. With tokens from other useless NATO members.
Would it kill the Krauts to send a couple panzer divisions & maybe paint palm trees on their vehicles. They can replace the swastika with a happy face if they want.
They tried that in Afghanistan, the left wingers went apeshit (the palm tree had a iron cross, instead of a swastika)...
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 29, 2011, 12:14:18 PM
Do they even have one panzer division?
On paper it looks like they have two (which is sad-- they had 6 during the cold war). But they could have a bunch of understrength panzer divisions if they wanted.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 29, 2011, 12:19:17 PM
They tried that in Afghanistan, the left wingers went apeshit (the palm tree had a iron cross, instead of a swastika)...
But I'm sure even lefties could appreciate the history-repeating splendor of such a sight in Libya :P
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2011, 12:22:46 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 29, 2011, 12:14:18 PM
Do they even have one panzer division?
On paper it looks like they have two (which is sad-- they had 6 during the cold war). But they could have a bunch of understrength panzer divisions if they wanted.
Why is that sad? Does Germany need 6 panzer divisions? Do they even need two?
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2011, 12:22:46 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 29, 2011, 12:14:18 PM
Do they even have one panzer division?
On paper it looks like they have two (which is sad-- they had 6 during the cold war). But they could have a bunch of understrength panzer divisions if they wanted.
Well it's not like the Third Shock Army's gonna be rolling through the Fulda Gap. As well all know the Germans are more in danger from the nascent Islamisit Caliphate which they are incubating in their vast immigrant slums.
Ok, so they can deploy a panzer division. Can they also deploy: fallschirmjagers :cool:
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2011, 12:22:46 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 29, 2011, 12:14:18 PM
Do they even have one panzer division?
On paper it looks like they have two (which is sad-- they had 6 during the cold war). But they could have a bunch of understrength panzer divisions if they wanted.
They could call it a "Leicht-Division"... ;)
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 12:26:58 PM
Ok, so they can deploy a panzer division. Can they also deploy: fallschirmjagers :cool:
Will they try to recapture their glory days of old by: invading Crete?
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 29, 2011, 12:27:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2011, 12:22:46 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 29, 2011, 12:14:18 PM
Do they even have one panzer division?
On paper it looks like they have two (which is sad-- they had 6 during the cold war). But they could have a bunch of understrength panzer divisions if they wanted.
They could call it a "Leicht-Division"... ;)
Make it the 90th and I'm in.
Wll Gadhafi be captured rescued by Otto Skorzeny? :cool:
Quote from: Habbaku on March 29, 2011, 12:26:43 PM
Why is that sad? Does Germany need 6 panzer divisions? Do they even need two?
Absolutely. Not just for my personal enjoyment (though that's a large part of it), but also because they need to be able to pull their own weight to help make the world safe for Western business interests.
Also needed to spank France and Poland when necessary. :)
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 29, 2011, 12:26:56 PM
Well it's not like the Third Shock Army's gonna be rolling through the Fulda Gap.
That's what Putin wants you to believe. Oh sure, we'll all get a good laugh as the new Red Army plows through Poland, but don't think they'll stop there.
Putin is the shiznit. :cool:
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2011, 12:39:01 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 29, 2011, 12:26:56 PM
Well it's not like the Third Shock Army's gonna be rolling through the Fulda Gap.
That's what Putin wants you to believe. Oh sure, we'll all get a good laugh as the new Red Army plows through Poland, but don't think they'll stop there.
I don't think Poland would be a cakewalk for the Russians. Material science advanced a lot in the last 65 years, the lances should be much stronger now.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 29, 2011, 12:28:00 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 12:26:58 PM
Ok, so they can deploy a panzer division. Can they also deploy: fallschirmjagers :cool:
Will they try to recapture their glory days of old by: invading Crete?
German tourists invade Crete every summer by plane but not by parachute though :D
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 28, 2011, 09:31:14 PM
So, how about Obama's speech? Good, bad, so-so?
I think good. A strong attempt at explaining why intervene, why Libya and why not, say, Yemen. I'm still far from convinced but it's the most coherent thing any leader's had so far.
QuoteWhy though? Why go in? It is an internal matter, and our airstrikes have proven ineffective. Even if NATO did go in it would probably be the fucked up stuff we had in the Balkans or Rhuanda.
Before the air strikes the army was about to take Benghazi, there would've been a massacre and then they would have taken Tobruk. I'd have guessed that we'd be looking at the sort of thing seen in Hama in the 80s. Now Benghazi's been saved, Ajdabiya's been re-taken as has the major oil port and refinery's been taken and even Misrata seems to be holding out. The air strikes won't immediately cause the regime to collapse, but the idea they've simply been ineffective is wrong.
I doubt we'll see western troops there except, possibly, special forces and people training the rebels. Even then not for some time. I don't think the impatience is there.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2011, 12:48:52 PM
I doubt we'll see western troops there except, possibly, special forces and people training the rebels. Even then not for some time. I don't think the impatience is there.
If the Gaddafi regime holds out, and this becomes stalemated, this type action appears to be a pretty feasible scenario. Short of sending in troops to do the fighting, but going further to remove Gaddafi. I'd think the intervening nations don't want to leave Gaddafi in power, even though some are saying the action is to protect the populace. Leaving Gaddafi in power is basically a defeat for the intervening nations.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2011, 12:48:52 PM
Before the air strikes the army was about to take Benghazi, there would've been a massacre
In what other cities and towns taken by Gadaffi's forces was there a massacre?
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2011, 01:44:17 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2011, 12:48:52 PM
I doubt we'll see western troops there except, possibly, special forces and people training the rebels. Even then not for some time. I don't think the impatience is there.
If the Gaddafi regime holds out, and this becomes stalemated, this type action appears to be a pretty feasible scenario. Short of sending in troops to do the fighting, but going further to remove Gaddafi. I'd think the intervening nations don't want to leave Gaddafi in power, even though some are saying the action is to protect the populace. Leaving Gaddafi in power is basically a defeat for the intervening nations.
Yes. They have taken up arms against a regime. To leave that regime in power, especially let it re-consolidate its power is not only a clear defeat, but a grave security risk. Ghadaffi will end up dead under the ruins of his bunker, the only question is, at what price for the West.
Quote from: Warspite on March 29, 2011, 03:20:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2011, 12:48:52 PM
Before the air strikes the army was about to take Benghazi, there would've been a massacre
In what other cities and towns taken by Gadaffi's forces was there a massacre?
The rumours from Zawiya were pretty strong, though I've not heard any concrete reports. I think the language of Gadaffi and his sons towards the rebels suggested there'd be some brutality in the de facto rebel capital.
Quote
Yes. They have taken up arms against a regime. To leave that regime in power, especially let it re-consolidate its power is not only a clear defeat, but a grave security risk. Ghadaffi will end up dead under the ruins of his bunker, the only question is, at what price for the West.
Well the regime wouldn't be reconsolidating its power. It would still be under sanctions, probably only in power in part of the country and basically in the sort of position it was in the 80s or like Saddam was in the 90s - except the major oil producing areas are, I believe, in rebel hands.
I just think it's verging on the delusional (and I mean Gadaffi level delusional) to imagine any Western country sending ground troops into Libya - except for special forces and trainers. I think we are more likely to start bombing the Saudis to protect the Bahraini revolution than send ground troops into Libya.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2011, 04:35:04 PM
Quote from: Warspite on March 29, 2011, 03:20:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2011, 12:48:52 PM
Before the air strikes the army was about to take Benghazi, there would've been a massacre
In what other cities and towns taken by Gadaffi's forces was there a massacre?
The rumours from Zawiya were pretty strong, though I've not heard any concrete reports. I think the language of Gadaffi and his sons towards the rebels suggested there'd be some brutality in the de facto rebel capital.
The rebels retook some cities that had fallen back to pro-Gadaffi forces, though. Surely evidences of atrocity would have emerged and be all over the screens as triumphant justification for this humanitarian intervention?
What Ustashe is saying. Moo-Mar's fiery rhetoric does not a massacre make.
Assuming these rebels won't be able to drive up the road to Tripoli, despite having the world best close air support, what will happen next and what should the west do ?
My guess is 90-120 days stalemate as some form of training team, maybe very covert westerners, Arab GCC or Egyptians train up 2-3 battalions of rebels/ retrain ex-libyian army defectors into some form of coherent military formations. Surely that would be enough to do the job ? :unsure:
Quote from: Warspite on March 29, 2011, 04:50:42 PMThe rebels retook some cities that had fallen back to pro-Gadaffi forces, though. Surely evidences of atrocity would have emerged and be all over the screens as triumphant justification for this humanitarian intervention?
True enough, though that's after the decision was taken to intervene. At the time the rumours from Zawiya and Misrata and the language of the Gadaffis were enough, I think, to give rise to genuine concern there could've been a massacre.
But you're right there's no evidence that at this point Gadaffi's been more brutal than normal and we can't say a massacre was averted. Though Benghazi would seem more at risk, should Gadaffi retake it than the sort of towns that have moved back and forward - like Brega. He'd be looking to crush the rebels spirit entirely and to totally control an area - in much the same way as the rumours from Zawiya, Tajoura and Misrata make sense in trying to destroy any western rebellion.
"Dress them in blue, dress them in white, dress them in red, they will run away all the same."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2011, 04:53:42 PM
What Ustashe is saying. Moo-Mar's fiery rhetoric does not a massacre make.
Yep, we don't know there wouldn't have been one. But at the time I don't think we could know that, and any massacre may not have been immediate. He could well have wanted the media to move on. But as I think Rwanda and the Balkans show there's normally reason to worry when a leader starts referring to a section of the people as snakes or cockroaches and it's difficult to intervene in the timeit takes for rhetoric to become action.
Quote from: jamesww on March 29, 2011, 04:59:20 PM
Assuming these rebels won't be able to drive up the road to Tripoli, despite having the world best close air support, what will happen next and what should the west do ?
My guess is 90-120 days stalemate as some form of training team, maybe very covert westerners, Arab GCC or Egyptians train up 2-3 battalions of rebels/ retrain ex-libyian army defectors into some form of coherent military formations. Surely that would be enough to do the job ? :unsure:
Is stalemate so bad?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2011, 05:03:48 PM
Yep, we don't know there wouldn't have been one. But at the time I don't think we could know that, and any massacre may not have been immediate. He could well have wanted the media to move on. But as I think Rwanda and the Balkans show there's normally reason to worry when a leader starts referring to a section of the people as snakes or cockroaches and it's difficult to intervene in the timeit takes for rhetoric to become action.
Maybe we should have sent in a team of UN Massacre Inspectors before acting.
I think we should separate Cyrenaica from the rest of Libya. Then, Cyrenaica can be our little bitch and what's more, we can secretly promise it to the Egyptians if they behave, but with no intention of ever giving it to the Egyptians (carrot on a stick and all that). From that point forward, the Mediterranean from Haifa to Mersa Brega shall be our private lake. :cool:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2011, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: jamesww on March 29, 2011, 04:59:20 PM
Assuming these rebels won't be able to drive up the road to Tripoli, despite having the world best close air support, what will happen next and what should the west do ?
My guess is 90-120 days stalemate as some form of training team, maybe very covert westerners, Arab GCC or Egyptians train up 2-3 battalions of rebels/ retrain ex-libyian army defectors into some form of coherent military formations. Surely that would be enough to do the job ? :unsure:
Is stalemate so bad?
Search me :shrugs:
I'd have thought politically it would be embarrassing for Sarko and Cambers.
Quote from: Sheilbh link=topic=4500.msg235088#msg235088
Before the air strikes the army was about to take Benghazi, there would've been a massacre and then they would have taken Tobruk. I'd have guessed that we'd be looking at the sort of thing seen in Hama in the 80s. Now Benghazi's been saved, Ajdabiya's been re-taken as has the major oil port and refinery's been taken and even Misrata seems to be holding out. The air strikes won't immediately cause the regime to collapse, but the idea they've simply been ineffective is wrong.
I doubt we'll see western troops there except, possibly, special forces and people training the rebels. Even then not for some time. I don't think the impatience is there.
I agree, folks here seem to be overreacting quite a bit. If Qaddafi's forces try to move east again, especially if they have tanks, they're going to get hammered.
We don't know what happened in Zawiya, but all signs (including removal of graves) point to something terrible.
QuoteEyewitness says residents of al-brega fleeing east after Libyan army regains control of ras lanuf.
run away! run away!
Jon Snow, Channel 4 new, tweeted this:
" libyan rebels in chaotic retreat as London Summit struggles to find a way of getting rid of gadaffi without saying so.. "
Air strikes is like stiffening a bucket of spit by pouring in some buck shot. And if NATO did send troops in just what the fuck are they supposed to do after wasting the big G? Grab someone out of the mob that comprises the resistance and name him temporary president?
Quote from: jamesww on March 29, 2011, 05:47:48 PM
Jon Snow, Channel 4 new, tweeted this:
" libyan rebels in chaotic retreat as London Summit struggles to find a way of getting rid of gadaffi without saying so.. "
I saw Paddy Ashdown on TV yesterday pointing out that the rebels looked dangerously over-extended and got a bit ahead of themselves after first airstrikes.
This war is about as exciting as watching flies fuck.
I've become very confused about which side to support. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 06:00:57 PM
I've become very confused about which side to support. :hmm:
I'm sorta hoping we pulverize a hospital.
Quiet, you. Gadhafi might get ideas. I wonder if he reads Languish? :hmm:
OK, this war is increasingly resembling the Western Desert campaign; the film of the rebel trucks streaming back form the front or in full retreat reminds me of the tales told about the headlong British retreat back into Egypt. What was it called ? The marsa matruh derby ??
edit:
it was the 'Gazala Gallop'.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 06:03:14 PM
Quiet, you. Gadhafi might get ideas. I wonder if he reads Languish? :hmm:
We are BFF's.
Cool. Tell him that I love his dresses plz.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 06:08:14 PM
Cool. Tell him that I love his dresses plz.
I love his moustache.
I love his sociopathy. :cool:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 05:56:12 PM
This war is about as exciting as watching flies fuck.
Really? The participants may be incompetent, but it's the first back and forth war in a while with actual fronts.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2011, 06:03:14 PM
Quiet, you. Gadhafi might get ideas. I wonder if he reads Languish? :hmm:
grumbler HAS been eerily silent lately. :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2011, 06:33:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 05:56:12 PM
This war is about as exciting as watching flies fuck.
Really? The participants may be incompetent, but it's the first back and forth war in a while with actual fronts.
really. one front. up and down that coast road.
No real drama. Needs more armor divisions and helicopter gunships. Tom Clancy stuff.
Any danger of the rebels retreating to El Alamein ?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F63%2FWesternDesertBattle_Area1941_en.svg%2F800px-WesternDesertBattle_Area1941_en.svg.png&hash=4e1f717f56d1e93491f25b468082343ce3426789)
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 06:35:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2011, 06:33:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 05:56:12 PM
This war is about as exciting as watching flies fuck.
Really? The participants may be incompetent, but it's the first back and forth war in a while with actual fronts.
really. one front. up and down that coast road.
There's the siege of Misarata.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2011, 06:50:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 06:35:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2011, 06:33:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2011, 05:56:12 PM
This war is about as exciting as watching flies fuck.
Really? The participants may be incompetent, but it's the first back and forth war in a while with actual fronts.
really. one front. up and down that coast road.
There's the siege of Misarata.
big whoop. rebels pinned in a city. Same thing with Zintan.
Boring.
Were the rebel gains in their advance deliberate?
Channel 4 news reports that Western Libya is running out of petrol/gas and that armoured vehicles appear largely absent.
Same news programme had film of A10s arriving in northern Italy. :whistle:
Quote from: jamesww on March 29, 2011, 08:59:39 PM
Same news programme had film of A10s arriving in northern Italy. :whistle:
Were they ugly?
Quote from: Slargos on March 29, 2011, 07:49:39 AM
Paying half a million dollars to kill a few arabs is too fucking expensive.
I disagree. Best use of my tax dollars EVAH.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2011, 09:27:13 PM
Quote from: Slargos on March 29, 2011, 07:49:39 AM
Paying half a million dollars to kill a few arabs is too fucking expensive.
I disagree. Best use of my tax dollars EVAH.
Really? You may like the result, but surely you can't be happy with the efficiency? God help our finances if we ever have to kill people by the millions.
Actually, I'm curious about how the cost of killing one enemy changed over the decades. The absolute cost surely went up, but I wonder if a percentage point of GDP really did kill more people in 1940ies as compared to now.
Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2011, 09:37:16 PM
Actually, I'm curious about how the cost of killing one enemy changed over the decades. The absolute cost surely went up, but I wonder if a percentage point of GDP really did kill more people in 1940ies as compared to now.
Back in the 1940's killing people payed for itself. At least in some countries.
Laffer Curve. :bleeding:
Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2011, 09:33:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2011, 09:27:13 PM
Quote from: Slargos on March 29, 2011, 07:49:39 AM
Paying half a million dollars to kill a few arabs is too fucking expensive.
I disagree. Best use of my tax dollars EVAH.
Really? You may like the result, but surely you can't be happy with the efficiency? God help our finances if we ever have to kill people by the millions.
Considering every tax dollar every American member of Languish, their families, their children, and their children's children will ever pay has already been spent in Willie Nelson's tax evasion plea bargain with GHW Bush's Treasury Department, leaving the US taxpayer to pay for half of the $32 million he owed...well, let's just say I try not to think about the efficiency.
If I want to fantasize that my tax dollars go to killing Arabs, just let me have my little pleasures, OK?
Send in the Frogs and the Turks. We're spent for the moment.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/NATO-Commander-Says-Libya-May-Need-Foreign-Stabilization-Force-118864814.html
QuoteThe top NATO military commander says Libya may need a foreign stabilization force if rebels supported by international airstrikes succeed in ousting the country's leader, Moammar Gadhafi. U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavridis made the comment in an appearance Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Admiral Stavridis says there has been no discussion at NATO of sending ground forces to stabilize Libya, but he believes it may be necessary.
"When you look at the history of NATO, having gone through this, as many on this committee have, with Bosnia and Kosovo, it's quite clear that the possibility of [the need for] a stabilization regime exists," he said. "And so, I have not heard any discussion about it yet, but I think that history is in everybody's mind as we look at the events in Libya."
Admiral Stavridis cited the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia in 1995, which NATO leaders failed to prevent, as one reason they decided to act to stop Gadhafi's forces from taking the rebel headquarters city of Benghazi. President Barack Obama has said he will not send U.S. ground troops into Libya, and Admiral Stavridis said he is not aware of any NATO forces being deployed there so far.
The admiral came under repeated questioning by committee members about what some see as an inconsistency in the allied approach to Libya, which calls for an end to Gadhafi's rule but a military mission that does not specifically include that as a goal.
Stavridis said he believes the two approaches will come together over time, but that any regime change will be initiated by the Libyan people, or by Gadhafi himself.
"By our participation in protecting the people of Libya, we create a safe and secure environment in which the people of Libya can make a determination, and that they then have the ability to undertake the kind of effort that would, in effect, create regime change, as we've seen in other nations in the Middle East," he said.
Admiral Stavridis said the military mission involves enforcement of the U.N.-mandated arms embargo and no-fly zone, the provision of humanitarian assistance and the protection of Libyan civilians from pro-Gadhafi forces. He predicted that the military operation, plus international diplomatic and financial pressure and attacks by the rebels, will likely result in Gadhafi's departure or overthrow.
And he said even without the specific mission to oust Gadhafi, NATO forces are operating under sufficiently broad rules that they can attack wherever necessary in Libya.
"I think that any Gadhafi forces that are demonstrating hostile intent against the Libyan population are legitimate targets," said Stavridis.
Admiral Stavridis acknowledged that the international community still does not know much about the Libyans who are leading the rebellion. He said although there have been what he called "flickers" in intelligence reports indicating some of the rebel leaders have ties to al-Qaida, Hezbollah and other extremist groups, he does not believe there is a significant connection and that the leaders "are responsible men and women."
The admiral's' NATO forces have taken command of the arms embargo and no-fly zone enforcement from U.S. Africa Command, and he says NATO will take command of the humanitarian and protection of civilians effort within the next day or two. He praised the rapid creation of the international coalition that is involved in the operations, but he said he would like to see more involvement from Arab countries, beyond the aircraft and crews provided by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2011, 09:46:24 PM
Considering every tax dollar every American member of Languish, their families, their children, and their children's children will ever pay has already been spent in Willie Nelson's tax evasion plea bargain with GHW Bush's Treasury Department, leaving the US taxpayer to pay for half of the $32 million he owed...well, let's just say I try not to think about the efficiency.
If I want to fantasize that my tax dollars go to killing Arabs, just let me have my little pleasures, OK?
True dat. Our politicians keep getting better and better at discovering new ways to pour the money we've earned down the drain. I, for one, enjoy seeing those dollars put to practical use for a change, e.g. blowing up whacko nationalist morons.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 30, 2011, 08:22:40 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2011, 09:46:24 PM
Considering every tax dollar every American member of Languish, their families, their children, and their children's children will ever pay has already been spent in Willie Nelson's tax evasion plea bargain with GHW Bush's Treasury Department, leaving the US taxpayer to pay for half of the $32 million he owed...well, let's just say I try not to think about the efficiency.
If I want to fantasize that my tax dollars go to killing Arabs, just let me have my little pleasures, OK?
True dat. Our politicians keep getting better and better at discovering new ways to pour the money we've earned down the drain. I, for one, enjoy seeing those dollars put to practical use for a change, e.g. blowing up whacko nationalist morons.
That was probably the 9/11 hijackers thinking, or lack thereof. ;)
Quote from: jamesww on March 30, 2011, 08:26:02 AM
That was probably the 9/11 hijackers thinking, or lack thereof. ;)
Hyperbole is lost on you imbeciles.
Gadhafi's men have retaken Mersa Brega.
God, these rebels are a fucking JOKE. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2011, 12:53:41 PM
Gadhafi's men have retaken Mersa Brega.
God, these rebels are a fucking JOKE. :rolleyes:
Send in DAK. And Rommel.
He's used to not having petrol.
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2011, 12:53:41 PM
Gadhafi's men have retaken Mersa Brega.
God, these rebels are a fucking JOKE. :rolleyes:
They're trying, facing a fairly well equipped and trained army, especially compared to themselves. I give them some credit for taking the risks. If they can get the time to be trained and better equipped, they'll probably be fine.
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2011, 12:53:41 PM
Gadhafi's men have retaken Mersa Brega.
God, these rebels are a fucking JOKE. :rolleyes:
:lmfao:
I wonder what will happen when it becomes abundantly clear that airstrikes are not enough to stop the Gaddhafian juggernaut towards Benghazi. :hmm:
Western boots on the ground, like I predicted earlier.
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2011, 01:43:21 PM
Western boots on the ground, like I predicted earlier.
I expect the intervention of the 9ÈME BRIGADE LÉGÈRE BLINDÉE DE MARINE within a week. Or the 11ÈME BRIGADE PARACHUTISTE.
Which would be cool. French troops vs. Libyans and African mercs? Fun time and dead arabs.
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2011, 01:43:21 PM
Western boots on the ground, like I predicted earlier.
yeah, those rebels probably can use some decent boots too.
Quote from: Drakken on March 30, 2011, 01:33:41 PM
I wonder what will happen when it becomes abundantly clear that airstrikes are not enough to stop the Gaddhafian juggernaut towards Benghazi. :hmm:
If the airstrikes are not cutting it..
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.kyon.pl%2Fstatic%2Fimg%2Fremiq.net_4343.jpg&hash=5b44550e8d024f9f542499130277db3f3e7eba5c)
It just needs more explosives and possibly the deployment of proper arab-murdering tools like aryan phosphorus.
Slarg is going to have his pants down when they finally start showing footage of dead African mercs. You know there is some out there.
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2011, 01:43:21 PM
Western boots on the ground, like I predicted earlier.
Agreed. Either for trainers, or for the aftermath to keep the peace if the Rebels win. Or to actually help out, since the intervening nations will not want to lose this.
I look forward to Obama becoming the next LBJ. :cool:
"BHO, BHO, how many Arabs gonna die today, yo?"
Ok that was bad. :blush: But you get my drift.
Quote from: KRonn on March 30, 2011, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2011, 01:43:21 PM
Western boots on the ground, like I predicted earlier.
Agreed. Either for trainers, or for the aftermath to keep the peace if the Rebels win. Or to actually help out, since the intervening nations will not want to lose this.
Khadaffi doesn't look like he would wait until the rebel rabble is turned into an actual army by european drill officers
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 30, 2011, 01:57:09 PM
Slarg is going to have his pants down when they finally start showing footage of dead African mercs. You know there is some out there.
A google search actually turns up a few results, but it's of course impossible to know if they are current or even real.
The idea brought a smile to my face, however, and I needed that after the Krantz pictures. :hug:
Apparently Gadaffi's forces have just ditched their tanks and are beating the crap out of the rebels on foot.
Quote from: Tamas on March 30, 2011, 02:17:17 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 30, 2011, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2011, 01:43:21 PM
Western boots on the ground, like I predicted earlier.
Agreed. Either for trainers, or for the aftermath to keep the peace if the Rebels win. Or to actually help out, since the intervening nations will not want to lose this.
Khadaffi doesn't look like he would wait until the rebel rabble is turned into an actual army by european drill officers
So maybe some boots on the ground as a stop gap between Gaddafi's forces. Or, I wonder if the Egyptian army would intervene, or just provide the barrier between the sides?? :hmm: That's a pretty powerful, well trained army, and with NATO air power Gaddafi would be stymied.
Quote from: Warspite on March 30, 2011, 02:42:00 PM
Apparently Gadaffi's forces have just ditched their tanks and are beating the crap out of the rebels on foot.
The rebels in the east are so poorly organized that I believe that a single regular infantry battalion can beat them any time, any where. In fact it looks like this is what is happening on the ground right now, no tanks, no heavy artillery. Just basic infantry supported by mortars and some of those nifty Chinese 106mm Type 63 rocket artillery. You could say that both parties now have the same level of equipment, but that the pro- Gaddafi forces is much better organized. Well it doesn't take much to be better organized than the rebels right now, but that's the point...
Quote from: Drakken on March 30, 2011, 01:33:41 PM
I wonder what will happen when it becomes abundantly clear that airstrikes are not enough to stop the Gaddhafian juggernaut towards Benghazi. :hmm:
They need to hurry up & fortify the Obama Line south of Benghazi.
CNN sez CIA in country.
So?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 30, 2011, 06:03:39 PM
So?
More hijinks from the Company. Like the Bihac pocket, when the Company was running guns and ammo under the noses of the Europeans.
Does Gadaffi have enough men to seize and hold all of eastern Libya and pacify it?
Is there any point giving sophisticated weapons to the rebels; last week I say film of one rebel using a sa-7 as if it were an rpg.
Don't these rebels really need basic training and someone to form them into units ?
Eventually. They'd probably need a unified chain of command, some cohesive strategy, etc first.
I think before anyone forms them into units they have to be willing to be formed into units.
Well BBC Newsnight just interviewed the 2nd in command of the rebels forces, a former regime general, and he all but admitted it was like herding cats.
Asked about the number of former libyan soldiers involved on the rebel side, he said it was a few thousand and these had basically taken off their uniforms, become civilians and gone of to the front to fight, just like all of the other rebels.
Maybe there isn't even what amounts to an organised platoon of ex-soldiers at the 'front' ?
Whatever happened to that Tiger Blood Freedom Sword battalion that defected way back at the beginning?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2011, 06:45:07 PM
Does Gadaffi have enough men to seize and hold all of eastern Libya and pacify it?
You don't have hold it if you wipe them out.
It's funny how conflicts there always boil down to Tripoli vs. Cyrenaica.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 30, 2011, 01:31:55 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2011, 12:53:41 PM
Gadhafi's men have retaken Mersa Brega.
God, these rebels are a fucking JOKE. :rolleyes:
:lmfao:
Honestly though, I've seen more organization from the mob at College Park after upsetting Duke. These guys put the LOL in LOL WUT
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 30, 2011, 07:33:37 PM
Honestly though, I've seen more organization from the mob at College Park after upsetting Duke. These guys put the LOL in LOL WUT
College Park already has embryonic organization via the Greek system.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 30, 2011, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 30, 2011, 01:31:55 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2011, 12:53:41 PM
Gadhafi's men have retaken Mersa Brega.
God, these rebels are a fucking JOKE. :rolleyes:
:lmfao:
Honestly though, I've seen more organization from the mob at College Park after upsetting Duke. These guys put the LOL in LOL WUT
Or Paternoville.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.examiner.com%2Fimages%2Fblog%2FEXID6668%2Fimages%2Fjoe_pa_is_loco.jpg&hash=d3a13696fd7d51d917cb601f6c3f400c3c159e01)
According to CNN, there are less than a 1,000 rebel soldiers in total. :XD:
Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2011, 10:21:53 PM
According to CNN, there are less than a 1,000 rebel soldiers in total. :XD:
Well see for you self, the glorious rebel army in full retreat...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg41.imageshack.us%2Fimg41%2F8131%2F800xr.jpg&hash=fe21c1edf27cc6879e0db317bdd35b8152550663)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg814.imageshack.us%2Fimg814%2F2971%2F800xp.jpg&hash=3ce0f7b200cc4febb33253885bfe225040a3d454)
If the por- Gaddafi forces have had any real artillery left could they have ended this farce in a heartbeat...
Advance, retreat, advance, retreat....
It's like a bad impersonation of the North African campaign...with Gadhafi playing both the Italians and Rommel.
But I guess that would make NATO....um....Turtledovian lizards.
Of all the arab rebellions, we decided to side with the most ridicoulous one. :lol:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 30, 2011, 09:08:38 AM
Quote from: jamesww on March 30, 2011, 08:26:02 AM
That was probably the 9/11 hijackers thinking, or lack thereof. ;)
Hyperbole is lost on you imbeciles.
People who don't get hyperbole are worse than Hitler.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 01:38:44 AM
People who don't get hyperbole are worse than Hitler.
:lol:
Barack has apparently referred to the Libya war as a "Turd Sandwich". :P
I get the impression that he was more or less bullied into participating in this by Hillary.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 31, 2011, 12:14:53 PM
Barack has apparently referred to the Libya war as a "Turd Sandwich". :P
I get the impression that he was more or less bullied into participating in this by Hillary.
Meh still his fault. The buck stops with whoever is using Harry Truman's desk.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2011, 12:28:11 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 31, 2011, 12:14:53 PM
Barack has apparently referred to the Libya war as a "Turd Sandwich". :P
I get the impression that he was more or less bullied into participating in this by Hillary.
Meh still his fault. The buck stops with whoever is using Harry Truman's desk.
Yeah, but I wonder if the "Hen Hawks" (Hillary, Susan Rice & that other gal) will become the scapegoats if this thing continues deteriorate.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2011, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2011, 12:28:11 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 31, 2011, 12:14:53 PM
Barack has apparently referred to the Libya war as a "Turd Sandwich". :P
I get the impression that he was more or less bullied into participating in this by Hillary.
Meh still his fault. The buck stops with whoever is using Harry Truman's desk.
Yeah, but I wonder if the "Hen Hawks" (Hillary, Susan Rice & that other gal) will become the scapegoats if this thing continues deteriorate.
Meh, I wish it was possible for things not to go the way we hope without the need for scapegoats.
We tried to help the rebels, it may not work out, oh well. Do we have to guarantee success before we try anything?
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2011, 01:02:16 PM
Meh, I wish it was possible for things not to go the way we hope without the need for scapegoats.
That's politics, baby.
QuoteWe tried to help the rebels, it may not work out, oh well.
So... you think we shouldn't hold our leaders responsible for foreign policy blunders? Should we just forgive & forget?
QuoteDo we have to guarantee success before we try anything?
No. But it helps to have a few things in order before we start shooting. Like defining a clear objective, explaining to the American people before or immediately after the commencement of hostilities why this in our national interests, consulting Congress instead of just the Arab League & UN, and actually having a goddamned plan.
As low as the bar has been set for Obama since his inauguration, he managed disappoint even his supporters on this one.
Why are you assuming that this was a foreign policy blunder (assuming the rebels do in fact fail)?
We tried to help, it didn't work.
QuoteThat's politics, baby.
Exactly. If the effort doesn't work, lets see how we can use that to our political advantage. If it does work, lets make sure we don't give any credit. Because it is all politics.
What is funny is how you later go on about "national interests". Who gives a shit about our national interests, it is "politics, baby" and that is surely more important than "national interests".
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2011, 01:54:44 PM
No. But it helps to have a few things in order before we start shooting. Like defining a clear objective, explaining to the American people before or immediately after the commencement of hostilities why this in our national interests, consulting Congress instead of just the Arab League & UN, and actually having a goddamned plan.
I can't think of a conflict the US was ever involved in that satisfied these conditions.
Even for ww2, Frankie explained the conflict as necessary to respond to the aggression of the Empire of Japan, then promptly directed the vast bulk of US resources in precisely the opposite direction.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2011, 02:25:40 PM
I can't think of a conflict the US was ever involved in that satisfied these conditions.
Even for ww2, Frankie explained the conflict as necessary to respond to the aggression of the Empire of Japan, then promptly directed the vast bulk of US resources in precisely the opposite direction.
You get that additional wiggle room when there's enormous public support to start with.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2011, 02:02:05 PM
Why are you assuming that this was a foreign policy blunder (assuming the rebels do in fact fail)?
Because our actions were done to protect the rebels & get rid of Khadaffi. At least I think that was our goal. If that will have failed to do the trick, I think it's fair to call it a blunder.
QuoteWe tried to help, it didn't work.
Yeah-- a blunder. Or failure. Or whatever. Are we debating semantics?
QuoteExactly. If the effort doesn't work, lets see how we can use that to our political advantage. If it does work, lets make sure we don't give any credit. Because it is all politics.
I was just stating that blame/glory is part of politics. But think about it, do you want a system where a president doesn't have to worry about any political ramifications before ordering military action?
QuoteWhat is funny is how you later go on about "national interests". Who gives a shit about our national interests, it is "politics, baby" and that is surely more important than "national interests".
Both are intertwined. Personally, if I thought intervening in Iraq was within our national interests I would support the president regardless of politics. What I was saying with my "politics, baby" comment was that if this blows up in Obama's face, that's political reality, whether you love it or hate it. Might as well bitch about the weather.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2011, 03:02:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2011, 02:02:05 PM
Why are you assuming that this was a foreign policy blunder (assuming the rebels do in fact fail)?
Because our actions were done to protect the rebels & get rid of Khadaffi. At least I think that was our goal. If that will have failed to do the trick, I think it's fair to call it a blunder.
QuoteWe tried to help, it didn't work.
Yeah-- a blunder. Or failure. Or whatever. Are we debating semantics?
No, we are not. A blunder is a mistake, something that should never have been done in the first place.
A failure is not necessarily a mistake at all.
Quote
QuoteExactly. If the effort doesn't work, lets see how we can use that to our political advantage. If it does work, lets make sure we don't give any credit. Because it is all politics.
I was just stating that blame/glory is part of politics. But think about it, do you want a system where a president doesn't have to worry about any political ramifications before ordering military action?
I would love a system where leaders do not have to make sure that everything is certain to work before they do anything. Because we end up with decisions being all about politics, rather than about what is right, or good for the country.
Quote
QuoteWhat is funny is how you later go on about "national interests". Who gives a shit about our national interests, it is "politics, baby" and that is surely more important than "national interests".
Both are intertwined. Personally, if I thought intervening in Iraq was within our national interests I would support the president regardless of politics. What I was saying with my "politics, baby" comment was that if this blows up in Obama's face, that's political reality, whether you love it or hate it. Might as well bitch about the weather.
True enough, but it is rather unfortunate, and I can certainly look with disdain on those who care more about scoring political points than they do about what is right.
Sadly, there are not enough people like me, and too many like you, so we end up with a system where leaders have to care much more about whether some other person who cares more about politics than what is right can fuck them if they cannot guarantee success. Of course, that just means we get leaders (like Obama) who are cut from that exact same cloth. Not like he got elected on the basis of his stand on principles rather than tribal politics.
Sorry, rebels, better luck next time:
QuoteTurkish PM against arming Libyan rebels
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, has said he does not support the idea of arming Libyan rebels fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power.
Speaking at a joint news conference with David Cameron, the British prime minister, in London, Erdogan said: "Doing that would create a different situation in Libya and we do not find it appropriate to do that."
Erdogan also said that that sending weapons to Libya could feed terrorism, saying such weapons shipments "could also create an environment which could be conducive to terrorism".
His comments came as Gaddafi warned the Western powers mounting air strikes on his country that they had unleashed a war between Christians and Muslims that could spiral out of control.
Western states intervened in Libya after the UN authorised them to protect civilians it said were under attack by pro-Gaddafi forces, but Tripoli says the military intervention in an act of unwarranted aggression.
"If they continue, the world will enter into a real crusader war. They have started something dangerous that cannot be controlled and it will become out of their control," said a text from Gaddafi, read out on state television.
"The leaders who decided to launch a crusader war between Christians and Muslims across the Mediterranean and who ... killed... huge numbers of civilians in Libya, they have been made crazy by power and they want to impose the law of strength on the strength of the law.
"They have also destroyed the shared interests of their people and the Libyan people and undermined peace and wiped out civilians and they want to return us to the Middle Ages," Gaddafi was quoted as saying.
Gaddafi gave regular televised speeches in the first days of the conflict but he has not been seen in public for several days.
Officials say he has been forced to change his routine after an air strike hit the heavily-guarded compound in Tripoli where he has his main residence.
NATO said it had "seamlessly" assumed full command of military operations over Libya on Thursday, and warned combatants on the ground against attacking civilians.
The military alliance had agreed on Sunday to take over all operations from a coalition led by the US, France and Britain, the handover officially took place at 0600 GMT on Thursday morning.
The move puts the 28-nation alliance in charge of air strikes that have targeted Gaddafi's military infrastructure, and of policing a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.
"The transition has been seamless, with no gaps. NATO is fully responsible," Canadian Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, commander of NATO's Libya operations, told journalists at the military alliance's Southern European headquarters in Naples.
US role
Meanwhile, as the US debates its future role in the Libyan conflict, defence leaders in Washington on Thursday slammed the brakes on any the extent of US help to the rebels.
Top officials said that some country other than the US should perform any future training and equipping of the Libyan opposition groups.
Under withering congressional probing and criticism of what was described as an ill-defined mission to aid a rebel force that officials know little about, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, sketched out a largely limited role for the US military going forward.
Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of the House Armed Services panel that many other countries have the ability to train and support the rebels.
"My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States," said Gates. "Somebody else should do that."
Gates and Mullen told Congress that future US participation will be limited and will not involve an active role in airstrikes as time goes on.
They were unable, however, to answer key questions from clearly agitated politicians about the length of the operation and how it will play out if Gaddafi does not relinquish power.
The US goals are unclear and officials do not know who the rebels are, said Mike Turner, a Republican representative, adding that if it came to a vote he would not support US involvement in the operation.
Turner and others repeatedly complained that Congress had not been consulted on the Libya operation, and chafed that the legislative branch is not willing to be a backseat driver.
CIA active
Gates and Mullen said that Gaddafi's military has been degraded by as much as 25 per cent, but Mullen noted that regime forces still outnumber the rebels by about 10-to-1.
They said the opposition groups are fractured and operating independently city by city, with just 1,000 of the rebels militarily trained.
Their comments came as Gaddafi's forces struck forcefully back at the rebels this week, recapturing lost ground and triggering pleas for help from the battered opposition forces.
Gates said that he believes political and economic pressures will eventually drive Gaddafi from power, but the military operation will help force him to make those choices by degrading his defense capabilities.
Gates and Mullen were testifying before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in the wake of revelations that small teams of CIA operatives are working in Libya.
Gates declined to comment on the CIA activities in Libya.
US officials have acknowledged that the CIA has sent small teams of operatives into Libya and helped rescue a crew member of a US fighter jet that crashed.
The CIA's precise role in Libya is not clear.
Intelligence experts said the CIA would have sent officials to make contact with the opposition and assess the strength and needs of the rebel forces in the event Barack Obama, the US president, decided to arm them.
Er... don't we want a different situation in Libya? :unsure:
As far as I can tell current US military involvement hasn't been that much larger than the times we launched attacks on Libya in the 80s, and is significantly less then say Grenada, Serbia or Somalia. Congress wasn't consulted before those conflicts either.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2011, 03:13:39 PM
No, we are not. A blunder is a mistake, something that should never have been done in the first place.
A failure is not necessarily a mistake at all.
Distinction without a difference in this case, then. I think this action was a mistake.
Quote
I would love a system where leaders do not have to make sure that everything is certain to work before they do anything. Because we end up with decisions being all about politics, rather than about what is right, or good for the country.
I see what you're saying. But political ramifications also have a positive function in that they force the leader to take more calculated risks when authorizing/ordering military action.
Quote
True enough, but it is rather unfortunate, and I can certainly look with disdain on those who care more about scoring political points than they do about what is right.
Scoring political points & supporting what is right are not always mutually exclusive.
QuoteSadly, there are not enough people like me, and too many like you,
I don't put political hackery above my own principles; you should know that. I supported this president when he wasn't doing anything on Libya (though I got annoyed with his escalating rhetoric & apparent indecisiveness). If I find something I agree with, I'll support the guy on it-- partisanship be damned.
Quoteso we end up with a system where leaders have to care much more about whether some other person who cares more about politics than what is right can fuck them if they cannot guarantee success.
What is your fixation on guaranteeing success? Can people not criticize the president because they disagree with the policy decision and think he did a shitty job of implementing it on top of everything?
QuoteOf course, that just means we get leaders (like Obama) who are cut from that exact same cloth. Not like he got elected on the basis of his stand on principles rather than tribal politics.
Well, you voted for him :P
I think "tribal politics" bit is pushing it. Obama did appeal to a wide range of people, until they elected him and discovered he's black and a Democrat. You don't win North Carolina and Indiana through "tribal politics" alone.
Quote--NATO will block arm shipments into Libya by sea, no matter where they are coming from, but Admiral Di Paolo is "confident" no allies are thinking about doing that.
Yes, I'd like to see General Bouchard try to stop a CIA shipment in. :lol:
I think the weird thing is this would be more popular had Gadaffi started to take Benghazi and footage of people dying come on our screens. It's a perverse quality that an intervention that stops a potential massacre is probably less popular than one to end an on-going massacre.
For what it's worth I do think this has been blown way out of proportion. I still think it was a mistake. But at the minute is it really that much more intense for Western powers than, say, the Iraqi no-fly zone? My view is it is unconstitutional, but then haven't most American wars been undeclared and undiscussed?
I find the response here and in the American news really weirdly hyperbolic. I think because the right are rediscovering their isolationism (remember one of McCain's maverick moments was supporting Clinton on the Balkans) because there's a Democrat in office, while the left are just uncomfortable with a war that's being repeatedly linked to Iraq despite no superficial or deep similarities. And it's been going on for about a fortnight and people are stressing out.
McCain is supporting this too. At least he's consistent.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2011, 06:51:28 PM
But at the minute is it really that much more intense for Western powers than, say, the Iraqi no-fly zone?
Quite a bit more intense for the US and Britain. Infinitely more intense for the other guys.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2011, 07:00:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2011, 06:51:28 PM
But at the minute is it really that much more intense for Western powers than, say, the Iraqi no-fly zone?
Quite a bit more intense for the US and Britain. Infinitely more intense for the other guys.
Is it more intense than the first phase in 92? Yep it's more for the French and the rest but I get the impression it's more popular there. The people who seem to be wobbling are the Americans.
Al-Jazeera had a report* from the fighting around Bregha, and the rebels were showing some slight organisation, someone in uniform was trying to herd them and they'd banned the celebratory gunfire (thank fuck).
However its still largely comedy hour; footage showed them firing a small MRL system from the back of a pick up, unfortunately they'd failed to remove one of the bedrolls from the vehicle side, it promptly caught fire and threatened to send up the whole bloody thing as the fighter desperately pulled away the burning mattress. :rolleyes:
* filed by the lovely Sue Turton :wub:
:rolleyes:
I bet one of them ran around in circles on the ground going "woo woo woo woo woo" after that, too. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2011, 02:25:40 PM
Even for ww2, Frankie explained the conflict as necessary to respond to the aggression of the Empire of Japan, then promptly directed the vast bulk of US resources in precisely the opposite direction.
He did explain the 'Germany First' doctrine, and that was definitely the plan.
How quick does Japan go down if we ignore Germany and throw everything into the Pacific instead? :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2011, 07:03:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2011, 07:00:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2011, 06:51:28 PM
But at the minute is it really that much more intense for Western powers than, say, the Iraqi no-fly zone?
Quite a bit more intense for the US and Britain. Infinitely more intense for the other guys.
Is it more intense than the first phase in 92? Yep it's more for the French and the rest but I get the impression it's more popular there. The people who seem to be wobbling are the Americans.
Stop listening to Dennis Kuncinich.
Also, I've given up on this war. Total suckfest after the first 2 days of assrape by the US.
Bush blowed up shit better.
Rape as a weapon of war and the disappeared in Ajdabiya, Al-Jazeera report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLz8Fv0eik
Quote from: Habbaku on March 31, 2011, 07:50:45 PM
How quick does Japan go down if we ignore Germany and throw everything into the Pacific instead? :hmm:
I'm not sure that it goes all that much faster, but I guarantee you that the war would have been a lot less pleasant in the Pacific. Speedrushing the Pacific means invading Japan without the atom bomb.
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2011, 08:12:55 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 31, 2011, 07:50:45 PM
How quick does Japan go down if we ignore Germany and throw everything into the Pacific instead? :hmm:
I'm not sure that it goes all that much faster, but I guarantee you that the war would have been a lot less pleasant in the Pacific. Speedrushing the Pacific means invading Japan without the atom bomb.
Yup.
But I don't know how much faster it would've gone. You can only fit X number of troops on so many islands at once.
Yeah, if the Japs don't get their War In Europe cards played, it can be pretty rough.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2011, 06:51:28 PM
And it's been going on for about a fortnight and people are stressing out.
What people? :unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 31, 2011, 09:02:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2011, 08:12:55 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 31, 2011, 07:50:45 PM
How quick does Japan go down if we ignore Germany and throw everything into the Pacific instead? :hmm:
I'm not sure that it goes all that much faster, but I guarantee you that the war would have been a lot less pleasant in the Pacific. Speedrushing the Pacific means invading Japan without the atom bomb.
Yup.
But I don't know how much faster it would've gone. You can only fit X number of troops on so many islands at once.
Not to mention running supplies through those little islands. And you can't get the bombing campaign on Japan going until the Superfortress enters service in 1944, because the Flying Fortress and the Liberator don't have the kind of range that you'd want.
Of course, the unintended consequence of that would be a Communist Europe.
Gahdafi seems: unlikely to accept!
QuoteLibyan opposition leader: rebels will accept cease-fire if Gadhafi pulls forces from cities
By Associated Press, Friday, April 1, 7:32 AM
BENGHAZI, Libya — A Libyan opposition leader says the rebels will accept a U.N.-demanded cease-fire if Moammar Gadhafi pulls his forces from all cities and allows peaceful protests.
Mustafa Abdul-Jalil spoke Friday during a joint press conference with U.N. envoy Abdelilah Al-Khatib. Al-Khatib is visiting the rebels' de-facto stronghold of Benghazi in hopes of reaching a cease-fire and political solution to the crisis embroiling the North African nation.
Abdul-Jalil says the rebels' condition for a cease fire is "that the Gadhafi brigades and forces withdraw from inside and outside Libyan cities to give freedom to the Libyan people to choose and the world will see that they will choose freedom."
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2011, 09:08:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2011, 06:51:28 PM
And it's been going on for about a fortnight and people are stressing out.
What people? :unsure:
The administration-- at least I would hope they are.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 31, 2011, 07:50:45 PM
How quick does Japan go down if we ignore Germany and throw everything into the Pacific instead? :hmm:
Can't build the ships necessary significantly faster, so "not much more quickly."
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2011, 08:40:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2011, 09:08:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2011, 06:51:28 PM
And it's been going on for about a fortnight and people are stressing out.
What people? :unsure:
The administration-- at least I would hope they are.
Really? Just seems like something to do to kill time in 2011.
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2011, 09:43:36 AM
Really? Just seems like something to do to kill time in 2011.
Gotta blow federal money we don't have someplace.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2011, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2011, 09:43:36 AM
Really? Just seems like something to do to kill time in 2011.
Gotta blow federal money we don't have someplace.
Exactly.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2011, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2011, 09:43:36 AM
Really? Just seems like something to do to kill time in 2011.
Gotta blow federal money we don't have someplace.
Michael Moore says we have the money-- more than enough to cover all state & federal budget deficits. We just need to go steal it from rich people is all.
It isn't stealing if the government does it for their own good.
That is why I bury my money in coffee cans
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2011, 10:37:46 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2011, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2011, 09:43:36 AM
Really? Just seems like something to do to kill time in 2011.
Gotta blow federal money we don't have someplace.
Michael Moore says we have the money-- more than enough to cover all state & federal budget deficits. We just need to go steal it from rich people is all.
Including from him, that pretentious, nonsense blathering left wing Totalitarian wannabee! <_<
Clearly he needs a new Mockumentary to illustrate his grand vision for how the world ought to be. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2011, 10:37:46 AM
Michael Moore says we have the money-- more than enough to cover all state & federal budget deficits. We just need to go steal it from rich people is all.
Slaughtering your sheep makes it hard to get wool in the future ;)
Hippie love rainbows will generate more wool. :)
Anyway, I guess we can go ahead & downgrade this from "civil war" status :mellow:
Totally hilarious. :lmfao:
They surrender faster than Italians.
QuoteLibyan Rebels Seek Cease-Fire After U.S. Vows to Withdraw Jets
By Thomas Penny and Patrick Donahue - Apr 1, 2011 7:20 AM ET
Libya's opposition called for a cease-fire after the U.S. said it's withdrawing aircraft used to attack Muammar Qaddafi's forces following adverse weather that prevented strikes allowing Libyan loyalists to push back rebels.
Libya's rebels would accept a cease-fire if their demands for freedoms are met, said Mustafa Abdel Jalil, head of the rebel National Transitional Council, during a news conference televised today from their stronghold of Benghazi. Any agreement would have to involve Qaddafi's fighters withdrawing from cities and their surrounding areas, he said.
The rebel move comes one day after Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. jets, won't be flying with NATO forces over Libya after April 2. Mullen said planes would be made available only if requested by NATO. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congress the U.S. will "significantly ramp down our commitment" to Libya except for electronic warfare, aerial refueling and surveillance.
I've decided I can't switch sides anymore based on who is losing, because these rebels are so fucking pathetic. It's all Gadhafi, all the way now. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 12:30:35 PM
I've decided I can't switch sides anymore based on who is losing, because these rebels are so fucking pathetic. It's all Gadhafi, all the way now. :cool:
:yes:
Let's hope we can make amends without replacing all his shit we blew up.
I'm shocked that NATO managed to back the wrong side.
Maybe he'll think it was all just a big practical joke. He'll probably blow up an airliner or two to show he's in on the joke. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 12:30:35 PM
I've decided I can't switch sides anymore based on who is losing, because these rebels are so fucking pathetic. It's all Gadhafi, all the way now. :cool:
You're such a "fair weather" fan of rebellions! ;)
We could sign a secret treaty saying his family members are allowed to beat the shit out of servants while vacationing in Europe. He would have to see that's a sweet deal.
Also we'd have to break Switzerland up for him. He thinks it's not a legitimate country for some reason known only to him. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 12:50:32 PM
Also we'd have to break Switzerland up for him. He thinks it's not a legitimate country for some reason known only to him. :)
Why don't we try my offer first and see where it gets us? No need to give away the farm.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2011, 12:52:06 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 12:50:32 PM
Also we'd have to break Switzerland up for him. He thinks it's not a legitimate country for some reason known only to him. :)
Why don't we try my offer first and see where it gets us? No need to give away the farm.
:o
Let's start with the Swiss angle.
Quote
More disciplined Libyan opposition force emerging
By BEN HUBBARD and RYAN LUCAS, Associated Press
AJDABIYA, Libya – Something new has appeared at the Libyan front: a semblance of order among rebel forces. Rebels without training — sometimes even without weapons — have rushed in and out of fighting in a free-for-all for weeks, repeatedly getting trounced by Moammar Gadhafi's more heavily armed forces.
But on Friday only former military officers and the lightly trained volunteers serving under them are allowed on the front lines. Some are recent arrivals, hoping to rally against forces loyal to the Libyan leader who have pushed rebels back about 100 miles this week.
The better organized fighters, unlike some of their predecessors, can tell the difference between incoming and outgoing fire. They know how to avoid sticking to the roads, a weakness in the untrained forces that Gadhafi's troops have exploited. And they know how to take orders.
"The problem with the young untrained guys is they'll weaken us at the front, so we're trying to use them as a backup force," said Mohammed Majah, 33, a former sergeant.
"They don't even know how to use weapons. They have great enthusiasm, but that's not enough now," he said.
Majah said the only people at the front now are former soldiers, "experienced guys who have been in reserves, and about 20 percent are young revolutionaries who have been in training and are in organized units."
The greater organization was a sign that military forces that split from the regime to join the rebellion were finally taking a greater role in the fight after weeks trying to organize. Fighters cheered Friday as one of their top commanders — former Interior Minister Abdel-Fattah Younis — drove by in a convoy toward the front.
It was too early to say if the improvements will tip the fight in the rebels' favor. They have been struggling to exploit the opportunity opened by international airstrikes hammering Gadhafi's forces since March 19.
In a sign the strikes may be eroding Gadhafi's resilience, his government is trying to hold talks with the U.S., Britain and France in hopes of ending the air campaign, said Abdul-Ati al-Obeidi, a former Libyan prime minister who has served as a Gadhafi envoy during the crisis. "We are trying to find a mutual solution," he told Britain's Channel 4 News on Friday.
British officials met with Mohammed Ismail, a Libyan government aide who happened to be in London visiting relatives, and told him Gadhafi must quit, two people familiar with the issue said Friday. The two demanded anonymity to discuss details.
The opposition said Friday in Benghazi, its de facto capital, that it will agree to a cease-fire if Gadhafi pulls his military forces out of cities and allows peaceful protests against his regime.
The rebel condition is that "the Gadhafi brigades and forces withdraw from inside and outside Libyan cities to give freedom to the Libyan people to choose," said Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, head of the opposition's interim governing council. "The world will see that they will choose freedom."
He spoke at a press conference with U.N. envoy Abdelilah Al-Khatib. Al-Khatib met Libyan officials in Tripoli on Thursday before holding talks with rebels in hopes of reaching a political solution.
The U.N. resolution that authorized international airstrikes against Libya called for Gadhafi and the rebels to end hostilities. Gadhafi announced a cease-fire immediately but has shown no sign of heeding it.
His forces continue to attack rebels in the east, which is largely controlled by the opposition, and have besieged the only major rebel-held city in the west, Misrata.
Misrata has been shelled by tanks and artillery for days, said a doctor in a city hospital who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals. Many people have been killed, including eight since Thursday, he said. He said Gadhafi brigades control the port and a main street, but rebels control the heart of the city.
At the main front, which has moved back and forth in a fringe between the rebel-held east and Gadhafi-ruled west, the rebels' losses this week underlined the inferiority of their equipment, training and organization, compared to the regime's.
There were signs of at least some rebel improvement in all three areas Friday.
The rebels had mortars, weapons they previously seemed to lack, and on Thursday night they drove in a convoy with at least eight rocket launchers — more artillery than usual. The rebels also appeared to have more communication equipment such as radios and satellite phones. A newly installed diesel generator, allowing pumps at a gas station east of the main fighting, was another improvement.
They also appeared to get some international air support. Rebels east of Ajdabiya chanted "Allah akbar," or "God is great," as two planes flew overhead, and later eight to 10 heavy blasts — more powerful than regular shelling — were heard in the west, where Gadhafi's forces were.
Rebels had pleaded in vain for international airstrikes much of the week. U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said Thursday that most combat missions had been grounded by bad weather.
It was unclear where the front line was on Friday. A day earlier, the opposition moved into Brega, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) east of Ajdabiya, but were again pushed out by Gadhafi's forces.
Ahmed al-Shiri, a 47-year-old former high-ranking officer from Benghazi, said Gadhafi forces were in Bishr, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) west of Brega.
NATO said it conducted a total of 178 flights, including 74 "strike sorties," on Thursday, when it formally took control of what had been a U.S.-led military campaign against Gadhafi. The Obama administration, already fighting wars in two Muslim nations, had been eager to give up that responsibility.
The U.S. Defense Department announced it will end command missions in Libya on Saturday, leaving the work for other NATO members. The decision drew incredulous reactions from some in Congress.
The better organized rebel force took a long time to deploy mainly because it was being drawn up from scratch.
"We were setting up and training and establishing units all over Libya," said Hamid Muftah, 41, a former member of air force now with the rebels. The volunteers got about 25 days of training and have been organized into six- or seven-member groups each led by a defector from the regular military.
"They're still not that good, but they'll get experience," Muftah said.
"We can't just do what we want now," said Nasser Zwei, a 40-year-old oil engineer behind the wheel of an oil-company pickup truck, now equipped with an anti-aircraft gun. "We follow directions. It will make a difference."
Now untrained fighters are turned away at checkpoints. They stay to the rear to hold the line temporarily in case Gadhafi's forces attempt to flank the trained rebels, said Ali Bin-Amr, a 26-year-old fighter.
Al-Shiri, the former high ranking officer, said the improvements were set up over the past weeks. He blamed "lack of organization" for the rebels' failure to reach Sirte, the Gadhafi stronghold they were marching on last week when they were turned back by an overwhelming force of artillery and rocket fire.
Now "we get orders from the military council in Benghazi. They're in control. The army is in control," he said. The undisciplined fighters "are not leading the way anymore."
The international effort to stop Gadhafi from attacking his opponents is deeply divided on whether to arm the rebels, but they may soon get their own money to buy weapons. The opposition's National Transitional Council has reached agreement with Qatar on a plan to sell rebel-held oil to buy weapons and other supplies, according to Ali Tarhouni, who handles finances for the council.
Gadhafi's greatest losses this week were not military but political. His foreign minister and another member of his inner circle abandoned him Wednesday and Thursday, setting off speculation about other officials who may be next. The defections could sway people who have stuck with Gadhafi despite the uprising that began Feb. 15 and the international airstrikes aimed at keeping the autocrat from attacking his own people.
Libyan state TV aired a phone interview with intelligence chief Bouzeid Dorda to knock down rumors that he also left Gadhafi.
"I am in Libya and will remain here steadfast in the same camp of the revolution despite everything," Dorda said.
Stiffened by CIA and Blackwater no doubt. Xe Rocks.
Quote from: KRonn on April 01, 2011, 10:56:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2011, 10:37:46 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2011, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2011, 09:43:36 AM
Really? Just seems like something to do to kill time in 2011.
Gotta blow federal money we don't have someplace.
Michael Moore says we have the money-- more than enough to cover all state & federal budget deficits. We just need to go steal it from rich people is all.
Including from him, that pretentious, nonsense blathering left wing Totalitarian wannabee! <_<
Clearly he needs a new Mockumentary to illustrate his grand vision for how the world ought to be. ;)
Quote1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=67562604-8280-4d56-8af4-a27f59d70de5
Tell me: when you let Wall Street and their GOP bitches fuck you in the ass, do you actually have a prostate orgasm, or is more of a masochistic/submissive Gimp psychodrama thing you enjoy?
Red Seedy amuses me. If he could only overcome his own rampant consumerism it'd be more believable.
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2011, 09:16:15 PM
Red Seedy amuses me. If he could only overcome his own rampant consumerism it'd be more believable.
I BUY UNION-MADE.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 01, 2011, 09:22:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2011, 09:16:15 PM
Red Seedy amuses me. If he could only overcome his own rampant consumerism it'd be more believable.
I BUY UNION-MADE.
Gauche much?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 01, 2011, 09:01:18 PM
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
:lol:
I am so keen on the idea of destroying Switzerland.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2011, 05:26:25 AM
I am so keen on the idea of destroying Switzerland.
I am actually keen on giving Gaddafi asylum as long as it is in Switzerland.
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2011, 10:25:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 01, 2011, 09:22:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2011, 09:16:15 PM
Red Seedy amuses me. If he could only overcome his own rampant consumerism it'd be more believable.
I BUY UNION-MADE.
Gauche much?
You slay me. You're two-thirds of what conservatives hate most; you're only missing a union card for the Hate Hat Trick, and yet you're such a conservative sympathizer. Your self-loathing exceeds even Malthus.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12944905 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12944905)
Quote2 April 2011 Last updated at 09:35 GMT
Libya: Coalition air strike near Brega kills rebels
At least 10 Libyan rebels are reported to have been killed when a coalition plane enforcing the no-fly zone fired on their convoy between Brega and Ajdabiya late on Friday night.
A BBC correspondent at the scene said the attack came after rebels in five vehicles fired an anti-aircraft gun into the air.
Meanwhile, Libya's government has rejected a rebel ceasefire offer...
Well, the rebels had called for more bombs to be dropped...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2011, 06:45:31 AM
You slay me. You're two-thirds of what conservatives hate most; you're only missing a union card for the Hate Hat Trick, and yet you're such a conservative sympathizer. Your self-loathing exceeds even Malthus.
Unions don't benefit me economically. Not sure what I should love about them.
I was pretty pissed when one of my credit cards was bought out by BofA. I suddenly got these new blue cards in the mail. Two days later, the account was paid in full and canceled.
Quote from: jamesww on April 02, 2011, 05:58:36 PM
... their source also said a new shipment of Katusha rockets had arrived via/from Egypt.
Hamas hand-me-downs.
Heh, I saw a news report that the US was giving Libya's military assistance before this, and/or the Obama admin was looking to expand financial aid to Libya's military! I wonder how much we working with them. :hmm:
Quote
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/04/libya.rebel.leader/index.html?hpt=C1
Khalifa Haftar: The man who left Virginia to lead Libya's rebels
(CNN) -- His story reads like a political thriller. Once a confidant of Moammar Gadhafi and then his sworn enemy, he led a band of Libyan exiles trying to overthrow the Libyan regime before being spirited in secrecy to the United States when things went bad. His name is Khalifa Haftar.
He has lived in Virginia for 20 years but now he's back in Libya, trying to knock the rebel force into some kind of shape.
CNN has spoken to several people who know Haftar well, and they agree on one thing: His role will be crucial if the opposition is to mount a serious military challenge to Gadhafi.
For Haftar it's personal. He has never forgiven Gadhafi for letting him rot as a prisoner of war in neighboring Chad after a disastrous military campaign in the 1980s.
By all accounts, Haftar is a soldier's soldier -- respected by junior officers, with a good command of battlefield doctrine. Some detect his hand in the better defensive organization of rebel positions around Ajdabiya, a town critical for the defense of Benghazi but also giving access to the south.
The former Libyan ambassador in Washington, Ali Aujali, describes Haftar as "a very professional military man."
He and Gadhafi first found common cause in 1969, when Haftar, as a military cadet, supported the coup that removed King Idris. He was rewarded with a position on the Revolutionary Command Council. His subsequent ascent through the military ranks was rapid.
But unfortunately for Haftar, he was involved in the disastrous campaign against neighboring Chad in the 1980s, when Gadhafi wanted to overthrow President Hissene Habre because of his cold war alliances with France and the United States.
Haftar was captured by the Chadians at the battle of Wadi Doum in 1987, along with several hundred Libyan soldiers. Gadhafi refused to acknowledge the existence of Libyan POWs and said he knew no one called Haftar. A Libyan exile who has known Haftar for 20 years, Aly Abuzaakouk, told CNN that "Gadhafi never formally recognized there were any POWs in Chad," sending the signal that he didn't care if they were all executed.
This infuriated Haftar, according to Salem al-Hasi, another long-time opponent of Gadhafi. "He approached the Chadian government and said he wanted to work against Gadhafi and get the captured soldiers freed," al-Hasi said.
So for the next two years, Haftar and several hundred former Libyan soldiers trained at a base outside the Chadian capital, N'djamena, as the Libyan National Army -- the military wing of the opposition Libyan National Salvation Front.
Just who funded them remains shrouded in mystery, but several Libyan exiles and a former CIA officer say the United States was involved. Former Libyan envoy Aujali would not be drawn out on whether the CIA was the paymaster, but said, "The Americans knew him very, very well."
And he added: "I think working for the CIA for the sake of your national interest is nothing to be ashamed of."
At the time, the United States was keen to see the end of Gadhafi. In 1986, President Reagan had ordered airstrikes against the Libyan leader's compounds in Tripoli after U.S. intelligence had established Libyan involvement in a bomb attack on a Berlin disco frequented by U.S. service personnel. Reagan had famously described Gadhafi as a "mad dog."
The dissidents never got a chance to invade Libya because their host, President Habre, was overthrown in a coup in December 1990 by the man who has ruled Chad ever since -- Idriss Deby. And that's where Haftar's story becomes even more extraordinary. Deby wanted good relations with Gadhafi, and the rapid exit of Haftar and his men. A bizarre African odyssey followed.
Derek Flood of the Jamestown Foundation, who has followed Haftar's career closely, said he and his men were flown on a U.S. plane from Chad to Nigeria and then to what was then Zaire (and is now the Democratic Republic of Congo), as Washington scrambled to find a home for the Libyan rebels. This account is supported by several Libyan sources and a former U.S. diplomat.
But Flood said a plan to funnel $5 million to the infamously corrupt Zairean regime to allow the Libyans to stay there was overturned in Congress.
The next stop was Kenya, but after relations soured between the Kenyan government and the administration of George H. W. Bush, some 300 Libyans were finally flown to the United States and resettled as political refugees at government expense. Haftar exchanged the desert expanses of the Sahara for a home in Falls Church Virginia, and his men scattered across 25 states.
For the next 20 years, Haftar lived quietly in suburban Virginia, occasionally denying rumors that he planned to return to Libya. But Abuzaakouk, who runs the Libyan Human and Political Development Forum, said that after unrest flared in February, Haftar received many calls appealing for him to return. And on March 14, he arrived in Benghazi to take charge of the rebels' chaotic military campaign.
Salem al-Hasi, who has lived in the United States since being part of an abortive attempt to kill Gadhafi in the 1980s, said Haftar can make a difference "as long as he gets the support, supplies and weapons." He said Haftar has a "sense of defining objectives and the ability to convince soldiers and officers" of his aims.
After spending two weeks in Libya, Flood said the chaotic back and forth of the military campaign has not allowed the rebels to train properly in rear bases.
Some have argued that Haftar and other exiles have been away from Libya for too long to relate to the younger rebels. But Aujali -- the former Libyan ambassador who split with Gadhafi -- said people such as Haftar may have been absent but "they are very well-informed; they have relatives."
Al Hasi spoke to Haftar by phone just a few days ago. "He was in high spirits and he thinks that in the near future the forces will be organized and the opposition will be much better than in recent weeks," he said.
There remains some doubt about the hierarchy among rebel commanders, who include Haftar, Gen. Abdul Fatah Younis and Gen. Omar al-Hariri. Abuzaakouk, who took Haftar to the airport for his journey home, said Haftar and Younis are friends and doubts they will become rivals.
He has no doubt that beyond Haftar's commitment to the rebels' cause, Haftar has a score to settle: "Haftar will fight to the death if necessary; he'll be the one to finish Gadhafi."
So, are the rebels islamic terrorists?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 02, 2011, 04:07:17 PM
I was pretty pissed when one of my credit cards was bought out by BofA. I suddenly got these new blue cards in the mail. Two days later, the account was paid in full and canceled.
What has this to do with the Libyan Civil War?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2011, 05:34:17 PM
What has this to do with the Libyan Civil War?
One of Seedy's rants about The Corporations.
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2011, 05:32:06 PM
So, are the rebels islamic terrorists?
I think we're taking the Pelosi approach. We have to arm the rebels before we can find out who they are.
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2011, 08:10:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2011, 05:32:06 PM
So, are the rebels islamic terrorists?
I think we're taking the Pelosi approach. We have to arm the rebels before we can find out who they are.
I thought that was the Reagan approach.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2011, 08:51:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2011, 08:10:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2011, 05:32:06 PM
So, are the rebels islamic terrorists?
I think we're taking the Pelosi approach. We have to arm the rebels before we can find out who they are.
I thought that was the Reagan approach.
WE WERE ON A COLD WAR.
:blush: fixed
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2011, 08:51:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2011, 08:10:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2011, 05:32:06 PM
So, are the rebels islamic terrorists?
I think we're taking the Pelosi approach. We have to arm the rebels before we can find out who they are.
I thought that was the Reagan approach.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesportssession.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F02%2Fcarter.jpg&hash=d91dbe83679b37b19ffe6dd3b3c4f5a0b2c45428)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2011, 09:32:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2011, 08:51:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2011, 08:10:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2011, 05:32:06 PM
So, are the rebels islamic terrorists?
I think we're taking the Pelosi approach. We have to arm the rebels before we can find out who they are.
I thought that was the Reagan approach.
snip
Come on. Carter never got a slam dunk against anybody.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 04, 2011, 09:34:01 PMCome on. Carter never got a slam dunk against anybody.
It was a white guy. Derspiess is a white guy. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Some new photos from pimp my technical outside the oli town of Brega...
First we have the classic Somali style technical with a 14.5mm ZPU-1 mounted on the back, a true classic that never goes out of style...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg848.imageshack.us%2Fimg848%2F2971%2F800xp.jpg&hash=85b31c7dade4ce63b39e5db939788cffa421e816)
Another classic, UB-32 57mm rocket luncher, used to be on a SU-22 fighter bomber, but now it act as mobile artillery. A lot of smoke and noise to impress the photo journalists, little else can expected from this Mad Max set up...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg690.imageshack.us%2Fimg690%2F1389%2F800xy.jpg&hash=e688f9d3b6426c51d04256d409024f91abc9ac64)
And now something for the modern rebel, an armored SUV with an Egyptian Sakr-10 Grad-P rocket luncher, fire power and protection in one, a much have for any rebel who wants to make an impact on the battle field...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg827.imageshack.us%2Fimg827%2F7522%2F800xa.jpg&hash=d0c2642c31f0e63a83ef5e1a9d4e915824411b65)
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 05, 2011, 02:55:36 PM
Some new photos from pimp my technical outside the oli town of Brega...
First we have the classic Somali style technical with a 14.5mm ZPU-1 mounted on the back, a true classic that never goes out of style...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg848.imageshack.us%2Fimg848%2F2971%2F800xp.jpg&hash=85b31c7dade4ce63b39e5db939788cffa421e816)
It looks like he borrowed the truck from some Okies.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 05, 2011, 02:55:36 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg848.imageshack.us%2Fimg848%2F2971%2F800xp.jpg&hash=85b31c7dade4ce63b39e5db939788cffa421e816)
I dig the Polish technical on the left.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2011, 03:17:30 PM
I dig the Polish technical on the left.
:lol:
Thread won, locked.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 05, 2011, 02:55:36 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg827.imageshack.us%2Fimg827%2F7522%2F800xa.jpg&hash=d0c2642c31f0e63a83ef5e1a9d4e915824411b65)
Doesn't that say 'mew' on the side of the truck? Must be secessionists.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2011, 04:36:19 PM
Doesn't that say 'mew' on the side of the truck? Must be secessionists.
Worse. It says 'Meiji;" they're pro-Japanese.
Ok, have we had the rebels perform another Gazala gallop today ?
Quote from: jamesww on April 07, 2011, 09:56:23 AM
Ok, have we had the rebels perform another Gazala gallop today ?
They do that everyday. Anyway the rebels tried to deploy Tanks today only to have them bombed by NATO, guess NATO doesnt like any Tanks on ground... ;)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997181 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997181)
Quote7 April 2011 Last updated at 13:35 GMT
Libyan rebels near Ajdabiya 'killed in Nato air strike'
Rebels in eastern Libya say their forces have been mistakenly hit in a Nato air raid.
Doctors in Ajdabiya told the BBC at least 13 rebel fighters had been killed by the strike on a rebel tank position.
The BBC's Wyre Davies reports chaotic scenes on the outskirts of Ajdabiya, with rebel forces in retreat reporting being hit by Nato air strikes.
It is the third such incident in recent days involving international forces deployed to protect Libyan civilians.
One rebel commander told the BBC he saw at least four missiles land among rebel fighters.
Many people have been killed and many more have been injured, he said.
Civilians are reported to be fleeing Ajdabiya in their thousands, according to the latest wire reports, after rumours spread that Gaddafi forces were preparing to attack the city.
Rebel anger
The rebels had been taking a group of tanks, armoured vehicles and rocket launchers near the front line between the towns of Ajdabiya and Brega in more than 30 transporters.
A doctor at Ajdabiya hospital tells the BBC's Wyre Davies that there are many serious injuries
Whether or not a Nato pilot mistook all of that heavy armour for Gaddafi weaponry remains unclear.
Following the apparent Nato attack, ambulances were seen heading in the opposite direction, towards the hospital in Ajdabiya.
There is considerable anger among rebel troops after what appears to have been a terrible mistake.
They are asking why rebel units were hit, when they could be seen clearly advancing in a westerly direction towards the front line.
"It is unbelievable," said one Benghazi resident. "Nato, with all the equipment they have - is this the second mistake? Is it really a mistake or something arranged secretly."
Another said: "The allies and the UN Security Council must allow us to be armed. We don't want anything, just to be armed to defend ourselves against this dictator and fascist."
Rebel forces in the area began retreating on Wednesday after heavy bombardment from government forces.
They had been calling for more Nato air strikes in recent days.
Nato is said to be looking into the incident.
'Friendly-fire incidents'
The alliance took over a week ago air operations from a US, French and British coalition to enforce a UN mandate to protect civilians in Libya.
Last Friday, at least 13 people were reportedly killed when a coalition plane fired on a rebel convoy between Brega and Ajdabiya.
Three medical students were among the dead.
The attack came after rebels reportedly fired an anti-aircraft gun.
In a separate incident, seven civilians died and 25 were hurt in a coalition air strike on a pro-Gaddafi convoy near Brega.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 07, 2011, 10:06:23 AM
They do that everyday. Anyway the rebels tried to deploy Tanks today only to have them bombed by NATO, guess NATO doesnt like any Tanks on ground... ;)
Now that is bad. Need some better communication between the Rebels and NATO! :(
Now NATO will have to give some tanks to the rebels to make up for the bombing. :hmm:
Rebel Tank with crew...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg191.imageshack.us%2Fimg191%2F1568%2F800xvr.jpg&hash=3b02737db764053d31d36ad68ffa00cb74971644)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg703.imageshack.us%2Fimg703%2F1486%2F800xhz.jpg&hash=a909940921683aea3ffb8b55baafc1d094054e68)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg12.imageshack.us%2Fimg12%2F327%2F800xhb.jpg&hash=5ac442c08af9ccc7146a9a0ad9b6b01bf0f76322)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg849.imageshack.us%2Fimg849%2F8863%2F800xq.jpg&hash=5223290d00e019b9d65235a6066e731499b5d9c9)
QuoteRebel tankers sit in a tent smoking hashish near their tank along the road between Ajdabiyah and Brega April 6, 2011
We're backing the pot heads? :lol:
I think NATO has adopted the Caliga Plan with regard to the Libyan conflict. :)
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 07, 2011, 10:19:07 AM
We're backing the pot heads? :lol:
I read somewhere - dunno if it is true - that the rebs have hash delivered with their rations. ;)
Anything that prolongs the conflict and kills more towelheads.
In fact, the more camel jockeys that flee to Europe, the quicker tensions will mount, and it will explode while I'm still young enough to successfully legally kill some sand-niggers. If this drags on much longer I may have to start the party early.
The PR of this guys is good it's insane.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 07, 2011, 10:19:07 AM
We're backing the pot heads? :lol:
I guess if they're smoking hash they're less likely to be al Qaeda. Though, didn't Gadafi claim al Qaeda was supplying drugz to the the rebels, or something along those lines?
QuoteBENGHAZI, Libya — Late Monday afternoon, as Libyan rebels prepared another desperate attack on the eastern oil town of Brega, a young rebel raised his rocket-propelled grenade as if to fire. The town's university, shimmering in the distance, was far beyond his weapon's maximum range. An older rebel urged him to hold fire, telling him the weapon's back-blast could do little more than reveal their position and draw a mortar attack.
The outburst midfight — and the ensuing argument between a determined young man who seemed to have almost no understanding of modern war and an older man who wisely counseled caution — underscored a fact that is self-evident almost everywhere on Libya's eastern front. The rebel military, as it sometimes called, is not really a military at all.
What is visible in battle here is less an organized force than the martial manifestation of a popular uprising.
With throaty cries and weapons they have looted and scrounged, the rebels gather along Libya's main coastal highway each day, ready to fight. Many of them are brave, even extraordinarily so. Some of them are selfless, swept along by a sense of common purpose and brotherhood that accompanies their revolution.
"Freedom!" they shout, as they pair a yearning to unseat Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with appeals for divine help. "God is great!"
But by almost all measures by which a military might be assessed, they are a hapless bunch. They have almost no communication equipment. There is no visible officer or noncommissioned officer corps. Their weapons are a mishmash of hastily acquired arms, which few of them know how to use.
With only weeks of fighting experience, they lack an understanding of the fundamentals of offensive and defensive combat, or how to organize fire support. They fire recklessly and sometimes accidentally. Most of them have yet to learn how to hold seized ground, or to protect themselves from their battlefield's persistent rocket and mortar fire, which might be done by simply digging in.
Prone to panic, they often answer to little more than their mood, which changes in a flash. When their morale spikes upward, their attacks tend to be painfully and bloodily frontal — little more than racing columns down the highway, through a gantlet of the Qaddafi forces' rocket and mortar fire, face forward into the loyalists' machine guns.
And their numbers are small. Officials in the rebels' transitional government have provided many different figures, sometimes saying 10,000 or men are under arms in their ranks.
But a small fraction actually appear at the front each day — often only a few hundred. And some of the men appear without guns, or with aged guns that have no magazines or ammunition.
For the nations that have supported the uprising, the state of the rebels' armed wing — known as the Forces of Free Libya — raises many questions. It seems unlikely that such a force can carry the war westward, through dug-in Qaddafi units toward the stronghold of Surt, much less beyond, toward Tripoli, the Libyan capital. And a sustained war of attrition could quickly bleed their ranks dry.
Unlike many antigovernment militias in other countries, the rebel-armed column has not had the benefit of years of guerrilla fighting, which could have winnowed and seasoned its leaders and given them a skeletal field structure to build on.
Instead, Libya's rebels have entered the grim work of waging war almost spontaneously, and would need time, training, equipment and leadership to develop into even a reasonably competent force.
For now, their ranks have three elements: a so-called "special forces" detachment of former soldiers and police officers; a main column organized into self-led cells of fighters built around a few weapons and pickup trucks; and a sort of home guard that is undergoing quick training to man checkpoints and serve as a civil defense force.
There is also the "shabab," milling groups of youngsters who arrive at the front each day hoping to pitch in, but with scant idea of how. Officially, the shabab are not part of the fight.
The rebels insist the size of the special forces detachment is large, but on the battlefield it feels anything but. Colonel Ahmed Bani, the military's top spokesman, suggested that some of these soldiers are being held back for now.
"Our army, the professionals, are still waiting for armaments," he said. "Only some of them are at the front lines supporting the young men."
The largest visible body of rebels each day consists of groups of self-led fighters in cars and pickup trucks, who move up and down the highway to Brega, where the Qaddafi forces have plugged the road to Tripoli and taken custody of essential oil infrastructure — a key to the economic fortune of any Libyan government.
These men are a Libyan melting pot, a cross-section of professions and backgrounds. Businessmen and engineers fight beside students and laborers.
A few are Libyans from abroad who hurried home in February or March, answering an urge to topple Qaddafi and remake Libya on less autocratic lines.
They lack structure and they know it. Each contingent fights largely according to its own whim. Sometimes no one knows who is in charge.
"We are without command," said Ibrahim Mohammed, 32, who said he had served as a sergeant in the Libyan army. "Too many without command. And this is the problem."
His fighting cell consisted of six men, two pickup trucks, a rebel flag, a heavy machine gun, a few Kalashnikov rifles, a Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifle and a surface-to-air missile. The six men — excepting two who are related — had not known each other before the uprising began.
Now they lived in the desert, roaming a single road, dodging mortar and rocket fire. Their truck beds contained blankets, a tarp, ammunition, bottled water and ammunition crates packed with fresh vegetables and canned food.
The third group is made up of more recent volunteers, who turn up each morning for training at a military base at the edge of Benghazi.
Mindful that the rebels lack weapons and trainers, and that sending them into battle against Colonel Qaddafi's conventional military will get too many of them killed, the rebels' military leadership is training them for the more limited duties of civil defense.
On two recent mornings, slightly more than 600 volunteers showed up at the base for a half-day of training. They looked to be from 18 to 60 years old.
They briefly marched and jogged on a parade ground. (On the first morning, one of them fainted within 10 minutes.) After this warm-up, the volunteers attended open-air classes on various weapons — the assault rifle, the heavy machine gun, the 82-millimeter mortar.
But the classes contained little more than the nomenclature of each weapon's parts, a discussion of each weapon's basic characteristics, and demonstrations of how to assemble and disassemble the weapons, and to clean them.
Tellingly, only the instructors had weapons.
Marey el-Bejou, an Airbus pilot serving as a spokesman for the training camp, said the indoctrination course would last a week. He had no illusions about whether it might produce a real military. He noted that the troops were unpaid and their training was marginal. The military had no barracks, no blankets, no uniforms and, in the eyes of many who showed up, little time.
"Can I be clear?" Mr. Bejou asked. "We are not organized. We do not have weapons, other than anti-aircraft machine guns. If Qaddafi wanted to be here, he could be here in four hours."
Out on the battle lines near Brega in the afternoon, where spirits were high but fighting skills and ammunition were in short supply, the rebels were engaged in a contest for which they were clearly unprepared. One of their most fearsome weapons said much. It consisted of Grad rocket-launcher tubes, jury-rigged into pods of four. Each was then welded to heavy machine-gun mounts welded or bolted to the bed of a pickup truck. Car batteries provided the power to launch each barrage. The firing switch was a box holding four doorbells, one for each rocket.
As monuments to the rebels' resourcefulness and determination, these homemade launchers were impressive. As instruments of war, they were not.
To use them against the Qaddafi forces, the rebels sped forward with loaded tubes, stopped along the highway, and fired the rockets toward Brega.
Each of the rockets, slightly more than nine feet long, climbed into the air with tremendous whooshes and long plumes of smoke. They accelerated out of sight.
No one knew for sure where they might land, and firing them this way exposed the rebels to charges that they are waging indiscriminate war.
"God is great!" the rebels cheered. Then they pulled back quickly, before the Qaddafi forces fired back, and the highway was pounded with incoming fire, another of the daily exchanges of fire in a ground war bogged down.
Somewhere in the rebel troops there's an idealistic young British expatriate gathering notes that will become "Homage to Cyrenaica."
Yeah...lets no do that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42468330/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
QuoteAJDABIYAH, Libya — The U.S. may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, the former U.S. commander of the military mission said Thursday, describing the ongoing operation as a stalemate that is more likely to go on now that America has handed control to NATO.
But Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers that American participation in a ground force would not be ideal, since it could erode the international coalition attacking Moammar Gadhafi's forces and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.
He said NATO has done an effective job in an increasingly complex combat situation. But he noted that, in a new tactic, Gadhafi's forces are making airstrikes more difficult by staging their fighters and vehicles near civilian areas such as schools and mosques.
The use of an international ground force is a possible plan to bolster the Libyan rebels, Ham said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Asked whether the U.S. would provide troops, Ham said, "I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that's probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail."
President Barack Obama has said repeatedly there will be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya, although there are reports of small CIA teams in the country.
Pressed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., about the situation in Libya, Ham agreed that a stalemate "is now more likely" since NATO took command.
Ham also disclosed that the U.S. is providing some strike aircraft to the NATO operation that do not need to go through the special approval process recently established. The powerful side-firing AC-130 gunship is available to NATO commanders, he said.
His answer countered earlier claims by the Pentagon that all strike aircraft must be requested through U.S. European Command and approved by top U.S. leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Ham said that process still applies to other fighters and the A-10 Thunderbolt, which can provide close air support for ground forces, He said that process is quick, and other defense officials have said it can take about a day for the U.S. to approve the request and move the aircraft in from bases in Europe.
Overall, he said the U.S. is providing less than 15 percent of the airstrikes and between 60 percent and 70 percent of the support effort, which includes intelligence gathering, surveillance, electronic warfare and refueling.
Recent bad weather and threats from Gadhafi's mobile surface-to-air missile systems have hampered efforts to use the AC-130 and A-10 aircraft for close air support for friendly ground forces. Ham said those conditions, which include as many as 20,000 shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, contributed to the stalemate.
Ham said he believes some Arab nations are starting to provide training or weapons to the rebels. And he repeated assertions that the U.S. needs to know more about the opposition forces before it would get more deeply involved in assisting them.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, complained that the lack of knowledge about the rebels is a U.S. intelligence failure.
"It strikes me as unusual and maybe something that Congress needs to look at further, that our intelligence capabilities are so limited that we don't even know the composition of the opposition force in Libya, " Cornyn said.
Ham said it was important for the U.S. to turn control over to NATO because many of the troops involved in the Libya strikes are preparing to go to Iran or Afghanistan or have just recently returned from the warfront.
"While we can certainly surge to meet operational needs," Ham said, "there is a longer-term effect if greater numbers of U.S. forces had been committed for a longer period of time in Libya and it would have had downstream operational effects in other missions."
Separately, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said U.S. envoy Chris Stevens' talks continue with the Libyan opposition in Benghazi.
"He is going to stay there for several more days at least," Toner said. "He is working with the opposition members to try to get a good sense of what kind of practical assistance we can provide them, what are their needs and how we can help then moving forward. There is a sense of urgency here."
He said Stevens is also getting a better assessment of who the rebels are.
The Armed Services Committee's chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he remains concerned about increasing activity by al-Qaida-linked militants in Africa, and said the military must make sure the terror group does not "take advantage of the fog of war in Libya."
Ham said al-Qaida extremists have said they intend to partner with the Libyan rebels, which increases worries about arming the opposition.
Friendly fire?
Wounded rebels being brought to a hospital in Ajdabiyah in rebel-held east Libya said they were hit by a NATO strike on their trucks and tanks outside the contested port of Brega.
NATO said it was investigating an attack by its aircraft on a tank column in the area on Thursday.
Medical workers carried blood-soaked uniforms from hospital rooms in Ajdabiyah, gateway to the insurgent stronghold of Benghazi in the east, after wounded fighters were ferried back from Brega.
"It was a NATO air strike on us. We were near our vehicles near Brega," wounded fighter Younes Jumaa said from a stretcher at the hospital.
Nurse Mohamed Ali said at least five rebels were dead.
Rebel fighters were weeping on their knees in the corridor.
"NATO are liars. They are siding with Gadhafi," said Salem Mislat, one of the rebels.
NBC News reported that the strike occurred about six miles from Brega. A bus was among the vehicles hit, according to witnesses.
A NATO spokesman told NBC News that officials were "aware of media reports regarding events on the ground in Libya but we have not been able to confirm anything."
It was the second time in less than a week that rebels had blamed NATO for bombing their comrades by mistake. Thirteen were killed in an air strike not far from the same spot on Saturday.
Miseries abound for besieged Libyans
A doctor who had been at the front among rebel ambulance crews said they were hit by a government rocket attack immediately after the air strike. One medical worker was killed.
The rebels have been fighting to seize control of Brega from forces loyal to Gadhafi for a week in a see-saw battle along the Mediterranean coast.
Rebel spokesmen told Reuters Gadhafi forces killed five people and wounded 25 in an artillery bombardment of the isolated and besieged western city of Misrata on Wednesday.
The barrage forced the temporary closure of Misrata's port, a vital lifeline for supplies to besieged civilians, the spokesmen said. They added that NATO air strikes hit pro-Gadhafi positions around Misrata.
Misrata, Libya's third city, rose up with other towns against Gadhafi in mid-February and has been under siege for weeks, after a violent crackdown put an end to most protests elsewhere in the west of the country.
A rebel spokesman told Reuters people in Misrata were crammed five families to a house in the few safe districts to escape a rain of mortar shells from Gadhafi forces which have subjected them to weeks of sniper and artillery fire.
Peace plan
Turkey's prime minister on Thursday proposed a roadmap for peace, urging forces aligned with Gadhafi to withdraw from besieged cities, the establishment of humanitarian aid corridors and comprehensive democratic change.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the measures would be discussed at a meeting by a group set up to guide the international intervention in Libya in Qatar next week.
Erdogan also assured the Libyan opposition that Turkey supports their demands, following recent protests in Libya against Turkey by some opposition members.
Turkey initially balked at the idea of military action in Libya, but is now taking part in the enforcement of a no-fly zone to shield civilians and has volunteered to lead humanitarian aid efforts.
Britain's Foreign Office said the contact group that will meet in Qatar, which includes European powers, the U.S., allies from the Middle East and a number of international organizations will meet in Doha on Wednesday.
The ministry could not confirm precisely who has been invited to attend. British government officials said the U.S. would be represented, and that the Arab League is also expected to be at the talks.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said last week that he planned to travel to the talks alongside about a dozen other Arab, European and international officials.
The group was established during a summit in London last week to act as the political guide to the NATO-led military operation and humanitarian assistance mission in Libya.
Hague told Britain's Parliament last week that the panel would "maintain international unity and bring together a wide range of nations in support of a better future for Libya."
Gadhafi has been widely excluded from international efforts to broker a peace plan, with rebels insisting that his four-decade rule must end.
In Scotland, prosecutors confirmed that they would not have a chance Thursday to interview Moussa Koussa, the ex-Libyan foreign minister who fled to Britain via Tunisia last week and has spent eight days in discussions with diplomats and intelligence officials.
Prosecutors said on Monday they hoped to speak with Koussa within days over the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, which killed 270 people — mostly Americans.
In 2003, Libya acknowledged responsibility for the bombing and Scottish authorities believe Koussa could offer vital information to their ongoing inquiry.
Another former Gadhafi loyalist, Libya's ex-energy minister Omar Fathi bin Shatwan, has also held talks with British and other European diplomats to discuss the state of Gadhafi's regime. He told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he had fled to Malta on a fishing vessel.
Oil production plunges
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed concern about deteriorating conditions for civilians in Misrata and Zintan in the west, and Brega in the east.
He said the situation in Misrata was particularly grave and called for an end to attacks on civilians.
The civil war has cut Libyan oil output by 80 percent, a senior government official said on Thursday, as rebels and Gadhafi's forces traded charges over who had attacked oil fields vital to both sides.
Rebels say government attacks on three different installations in the east have halted production of the oil they need to finance the eight-week-old uprising against Gadhafi.
The government's Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told reporters the British air force had damaged an oil pipeline in a strike against the Sarir oilfield which killed three guards.
NATO denied the alliance carried out any air strikes in the Sarir area and said forces loyal to Gadhafi were responsible for an attack which started a fire in the oilfield. It said Gadhafi was trying to disrupt oil supplies to the rebel-held port of Tobruk.
Shokri Ghanem, chairman of the government National Oil Corporation, told Reuters on Thursday the country's production had fallen to 250,000 to 300,000 barrels per day compared with 1.6 million before the uprising.
He called a reported shipment of Libyan oil by the rebels "very sad" and said it would only contribute to tension and divide the country.
The Liberian-registered tanker Equator sailed from the port of Marsa el-Hariga, near Tobruk, on Wednesday, apparently with the first cargo of crude sold by rebels since their uprising began in February. Oil traders said the cargo, vital to fund the uprising, was headed for China.
Frozen assets
There was confusion on Thursday about the fighting near Brega, but one rebel fighter said government rockets had hit the town's western boundary.
Al Jazeera television said Gadhafi's forces were advancing on the town from the coast and the desert and rebels were trying to reinforce its western approaches. This could not immediately be confirmed.
Other insurgents said a 130-strong rebel force was about 25 km (15 miles) east of Brega, which has been fought over for a week with neither side able to make major gains.
A senior U.S. Treasury official said Washington had frozen more than $34 billion of Libyan assets as part of sanctions against Gadhafi and his top officials. European governments had also frozen a substantial amount he said.
Gadhafi appealed for a halt in the air campaign in a rambling three-page letter to U.S. President Barack Obama bluntly dismissed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday.
"Mr. Gadhafi knows what he must do," Clinton told a news conference with Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, reiterating calls for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of his forces from cities they have stormed and his departure from Libya.
Civil war in the vast North African desert oil producer ignited in February when Gadhafi tried to crush pro-democracy rallies against his 41-year-old rule inspired by uprisings that have toppled or endangered other rulers across the Arab world.
A senior aid worker said on Thursday desperate refugees from North Africa had dragged each other under water and drowned when an overloaded migrant boat sank off Sicily. Up to 250 people wre still missing from the capsized boat, which was said to have left Libya on Monday.
Reuters, NBC News' Stephanie Gosk and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The readiness level of that tank crew is amazing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fianinthefuture.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F02%2Fbdchp.jpg&hash=97e0078637f33ddcf467ae3d73273e1a92ad72f4)
Interesting video of a British Tornado fighter bomber taking out a rebel Tank...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/libya-video/8437848/Tank-destroyed-by-Nato-warplane-in-Libya.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/libya-video/8437848/Tank-destroyed-by-Nato-warplane-in-Libya.html)
So the west is shelling out huge amount of money on this operation, and if it was not for this fact Qudafi would've killed probably a thousand times more people than were whacked in this incident, but no let's focus on the fact that you were "betrayed" by NATO you piddly fucking ingrates.
We're bombing the wrong people.
sbr's thing is amusing.
And lookey lookey, I didn't even have to quote his pictures.
Quote from: sbr on April 08, 2011, 07:21:13 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fianinthefuture.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F02%2Fbdchp.jpg&hash=97e0078637f33ddcf467ae3d73273e1a92ad72f4)
:)
Quote from: The Brain on April 09, 2011, 02:31:59 AM
Quote from: sbr on April 08, 2011, 07:21:13 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fianinthefuture.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F02%2Fbdchp.jpg&hash=97e0078637f33ddcf467ae3d73273e1a92ad72f4)
:)
:mad:
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 07, 2011, 10:19:07 AM
We're backing the pot heads? :lol:
The are taking Bill Maher's advice, making their country a place where it is a good thing to get stoned.
QuoteGermany and Libya
Return of the Afrika (aid) Korps?
Apr 8th 2011, 23:31 by The Economist|BRUSSELS
GERMANY has a complicated relationship with military force, for reasons that are more than understandable. But what is one to make of its contortions over the intervention in Libya?
One moment Germany is Europe's most awkward critic of the air campaign to save Benghazi; the next it is first to put up its hand to volunteer forces, including the despatch of ground troops if necessary, to deliver humanitarian aid to Misrata.
So are we about to see the return of German troops to North Africa for the first time since the defeat of Erwin Rommel's Afrikakorps in the second world war? Maybe.
[...]
It would be a cruel irony if Germany, in its attempt to restore its battered credibility among its allies, were to expose its forces to greater danger on the ground in Misrata than if it had taken part in the air or maritime operations to begin with.
Our government is even more retarded than I thought.
Read this article in the doctor's office.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/04/03/nicolas-sarkozy-s-war-on-gaddafi-influenced-by-philosopher-bernard-henri-levy.html
Apparently, we are war with Libya because Qaddafi embarrassed poor little Sarkozy. We're lucky we aren't at war with Britain.
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 09, 2011, 05:54:23 AM
QuoteGermany and Libya
Return of the Afrika (aid) Korps?
Apr 8th 2011, 23:31 by The Economist|BRUSSELS
GERMANY has a complicated relationship with military force, for reasons that are more than understandable. But what is one to make of its contortions over the intervention in Libya?
One moment Germany is Europe's most awkward critic of the air campaign to save Benghazi; the next it is first to put up its hand to volunteer forces, including the despatch of ground troops if necessary, to deliver humanitarian aid to Misrata.
So are we about to see the return of German troops to North Africa for the first time since the defeat of Erwin Rommel's Afrikakorps in the second world war? Maybe.
[...]
It would be a cruel irony if Germany, in its attempt to restore its battered credibility among its allies, were to expose its forces to greater danger on the ground in Misrata than if it had taken part in the air or maritime operations to begin with.
Our government is even more retarded than I thought.
Don't be so hard on yourselves. You go there without Italians this time ;)
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 09, 2011, 05:54:23 AM
QuoteGermany and Libya
Return of the Afrika (aid) Korps?
Apr 8th 2011, 23:31 by The Economist|BRUSSELS
GERMANY has a complicated relationship with military force, for reasons that are more than understandable. But what is one to make of its contortions over the intervention in Libya?
One moment Germany is Europe's most awkward critic of the air campaign to save Benghazi; the next it is first to put up its hand to volunteer forces, including the despatch of ground troops if necessary, to deliver humanitarian aid to Misrata.
So are we about to see the return of German troops to North Africa for the first time since the defeat of Erwin Rommel's Afrikakorps in the second world war? Maybe.
[...]
It would be a cruel irony if Germany, in its attempt to restore its battered credibility among its allies, were to expose its forces to greater danger on the ground in Misrata than if it had taken part in the air or maritime operations to begin with.
Our government is even more retarded than I thought.
Every Kraut I known loved to remind me that Germans invented Accounting, but they never seemed to mention how much its been involved in the historical development of Psychiatry.
Quote1:16pm
As fighting continues for Brega, home to several oil facilities, forces loyal to long time leader Muammar Gaddafi skirt that body of fighting and attack Ajdabiya from the south.
A large sandstorm has prevented NATO aircraft from targeting the troops, alowing them to set up artillery positions without fear of air strikes.
LOL
:bleeding:
Quote from: Tamas on April 17, 2011, 10:48:37 AM
:bleeding:
Frankly, the blabber that Europe can stand up for itself and fight an effective war without the US has once again been proven to be hogwash.
Which is worth every bit of the cash spent in the first few days.
France got the win in Ivory Coast, so I imagine they'll just pretend that this whole Libya thing never happened.
I read somewhere that three Euro countries (Holland is the only one I can remember) are taking part but not doing any ground strikes. I suppose they are vigilantly maintaining air superiority. What are Canada's ROE? Sitzkreig or real shooting?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2011, 01:21:40 PM
I read somewhere that three Euro countries (Holland is the only one I can remember) are taking part but not doing any ground strikes. I suppose they are vigilantly maintaining air superiority. What are Canada's ROE? Sitzkreig or real shooting?
Canada is firing. I think there is 6 nations shooting.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2011, 01:22:33 PM
Canada is firing. I think there is 6 nations shooting.
France, UK, Canada, and who else?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2011, 01:29:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2011, 01:22:33 PM
Canada is firing. I think there is 6 nations shooting.
France, UK, Canada, and who else?
I was off. 5.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13092451
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2011, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2011, 01:29:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2011, 01:22:33 PM
Canada is firing. I think there is 6 nations shooting.
France, UK, Canada, and who else?
I was off. 5.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13092451
That's the NATO forces, though. IIRC the planes from Qatar have flown a couple air strikes also. That would make 6.
I think Gutter very quickly said they would only be flying humanitarian missions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2011, 08:19:14 PM
I think Gutter very quickly said they would only be flying humanitarian missions.
Maybe. OTOH, we bombed the shit out of the Serbs while flying humanitarian missions.
From the front line in the besieged town of Misrata, taken on April 18, 2011...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg718.imageshack.us%2Fimg718%2F7831%2F800xrc.jpg&hash=5949518ccd103dd471cdad2d87da7f7c04696d78)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg231.imageshack.us%2Fimg231%2F7374%2F800xs.jpg&hash=6ec54dcca72039a6857279cb31874f1836776089)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg850.imageshack.us%2Fimg850%2F2971%2F800xp.jpg&hash=7451a7fcda065c824382bf6190b2ccf9ba65fe85)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg268.imageshack.us%2Fimg268%2F9093%2F800xk.jpg&hash=dc79e0197e80f612b199456b53a42460b1e38a50)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg535.imageshack.us%2Fimg535%2F3983%2F800xfg.jpg&hash=3b4698f05da4fcb3387e007f707b561b95424713)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg41.imageshack.us%2Fimg41%2F2964%2F800xn.jpg&hash=91453f87cafd38276c96154ce63f930cce987d05)
Misurata, Libya: Fighters Take On Gaddafi's Forces in a School, April 17, 2011.
http://youtu.be/FsMWvg2NDaU (http://youtu.be/FsMWvg2NDaU)
Note the rebel fighter in the first part, he is the first rebel fighter I have seen who actually looks like he is using the sights on his AK-47 to aim with...
Meanwhile in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, new uniforms and boots supplied by Qatar...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv282%2Fdelta110%2Fcamouflage.jpg&hash=1137862abdb02637d2dec62bb25bf9d1f2dbcfd1)
QuoteBritish military advisers to help Libyan rebels
By KARIN LAUB and MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press
TRIPOLI, Libya – Europe is ready to send an armed force to Libya to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid and Britain said Tuesday it will dispatch senior military officers to advise the opposition — signs that Western nations are inching closer to having troops on Libyan soil.
The proposal by the European Union to deploy the armed force to escort humanitarian aid drew an immediate warning from Moammar Gadhafi's regime that this would be tantamount to a military operation. France's foreign minister also said he was hostile to such a deployment.
The new tactics seem to have been spurred by the continued deadlock after two months of fighting between Gadhafi's army and rebel forces. There has also been growing international concern over the fate of the besieged rebel city of Misrata, where NATO has been unable to halt heavy shelling by Gadhafi's forces with airstrikes alone.
Misrata, Libya's third-largest city, has been under siege for nearly two months, with rebels holding on to seaside positions in the port area. In recent days, Libyan troops have pounded the city with shells and rockets. On Tuesday, rebels and troops clashed in central Misrata, and explosions and gunfire were heard.
NATO officials acknowledged Tuesday that they are having trouble destroying Gadhafi's mortars and rocket launchers from the air, for fear of inadvertently harming civilians in such strikes.
"It's not a conventional war," said Adm. Giampaolo Di Paola, chairman of NATO's military committee. He would not say just how much of the regime's firepower has been eliminated or put out of action by NATO's operations so far.
The fighting in Libya has been deadlocked for the past month. Gadhafi is holding on in the west, while the rebels control the east. NATO airstrikes have kept Gadhafi loyalists in check, but the rebels, poorly trained group with little military experience, have not been able to score military gains, either.
As the allies seek ways to break the battlefield stalemate, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain will send a team of up to 20 senior military advisers to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to help organize the country's haphazard opposition forces.
Hague insisted the advisers would not be involved in supplying weapons to the rebels or in assisting their attacks on Gadhafi's forces. He said the advisers would work with British diplomats already cooperating with the National Transitional Council, the political wing of the rebel movement, which has been officially recognized by Italy, France and Qatar.
Britain has said it would not become involved in directly supplying weapons to Libya's rebels; it has already sent non-lethal support, such as 1,000 sets of body armor and 100 satellite phones.
The EU, meanwhile, said it could deploy an armed force to Libya within days to ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies, said Michael Mann, a spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
Mann said a "concept of operations" has been approved by the European Union's 27 countries, outlining various possible courses of action. But Mann said the details of the operation, including how many people and what equipment would be needed, would await the specifics of any U.N. request.
The EU has no standing army, and the personnel and equipment would have be donated by member countries.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said he is "totally hostile to the deployment of troops on the ground."
Juppe made his remarks at a lunch for diplomatic journalists, which was reported on the website of the daily Le Figaro. He was responding to a question over a proposal by the head of the foreign affairs commission in France's lower house to send 200-300 special forces "who wouldn't be ground combat troops" to help designate targets for NATO planes.
Juppe said the rebel forces "can play this role without it being necessary to deploy troops on the ground."
The leader of the rebels' transitional government, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, will meet in Paris with President Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday, the president's office announced.
Ashton made the offer of military aid to protect humanitarian groups on April 1, but so far no U.N. request has been forthcoming.
Over the weekend, the U.N. reached agreement with Gadhafi's government on carrying out aid operations in areas of Libya he controls. A key destination for such aid would be Misrata, where hospitals were said to be overwhelmed with wounded.
Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim, asked about the possibility of foreign troop escorts of aid convoys, said "if there is any deployment of any armed personnel on Libyan ground, there will be fighting, and the Libyan government will not take this as a humanitarian mission" but as a military one.
Asked whether he would rule out such deployment, he told reporters in Tripoli: "Yes, because we are doing our utmost not to resort to such things." He said the Libyan government has repeatedly offered to help humanitarian agencies do their work.
Kaim also said NATO airstrikes have knocked out telecommunications in the central Libyan towns of Sirte, Brega and Ras Lanouf. He alleged the strikes were meant to help the rebels advance westward, into areas controlled by Gadhafi's forces.
In Misrata, NATO strikes only targeted radars and air defenses Tuesday, said Abdel-Salam, a resident who identified himself only by his given name for fear of retaliation.
NATO Brig. Gen. Mark van Uhm said fighting has been intense in the city for the past 10 days and that his forces have destroyed more than 40 tanks and several armored personnel carriers there.
"The situation on the ground is fluid there, with ground being won and lost by both sides," van Uhm said at NATO headquarters in Brussels, adding: "Gadhafi's forces have shelled Misrata indiscriminately."
But he cautioned that "there is a limit to what can be achieved by airpower to stop fighting in a city."
"We are doing everything to prevent civilian casualties by our own attacks (while) degrading (Gadhafi's) ability to sustain forces there," he said.
Concerning the EU's contingency plans, he said that "there has been no need for armed escorts until now."
"Until now, it has not been necessary to use armed escorts, and since the port of Misrata is still open, we don't see the need," he told reporters.
NATO's Di Paola said in Rome that even though NATO operations have done "quite significant damage" to the Libyan regime's heavy weaponry, what Gadhafi has left is "still considerable."
Asked if more NATO air power and bombing are needed, Di Paola said any "significantly additional" allied contribution would be welcome.
Given NATO's humanitarian mandate reflecting the U.N. Security Council resolution on Libya, which does not allow ground forces, "it's very difficult" to stop the regime's firepower on Misrata, he said.
"What is significant is we're preventing Gadhafi from using the full potential of his firepower. Unfortunately we're not able so far to deny him use of all his firepower," Di Paola said.
Di Paola said the alliance had "yet to succeed" in neutralizing the mortars and rocket launchers, especially inside Misrata, where it is "very hard" to destroy that firepower without inflicting civilian casualties.
World Food Program spokeswoman Emilia Casella says the U.N. agency signed an agreement with the Libyan Red Crescent to establish a humanitarian corridor in western Libya and "we received an indication that the government did not have any objection."
Casella said WFP trucks are already bringing food to feed 50,000 people for one month. The food will be distributed by the Libyan Red Crescent in Tripoli, Zintan, Yefrin, Nalut, Mizda, Al Reiba and Zawiya.
Separately, the U.N. humanitarian chief said she was assured the U.N. would be permitted to visit Misrata and other towns to assess the humanitarian need.
World Health Organization spokesman Tariq Jasarevic said that hospitals in Misrata are overwhelmed with casualties.
"They have difficulties conducting surgeries because the capacity is overstretched and 120 patients need evacuation," he told reporters in Geneva.
I love the double speak of "we won't provide weapons, but we will provide body armor and commo..." as if that wasn't just as important as a gun to a military force.
edit: And of course, we will also bomb the shit out of your enemies as well.
BUT WE WONT GIVE YOU WEAPONS, WHY, THAT WOULD BE INTERFERING!!!
If you bomb a man's enemies for him, you help him for a day, but if you teach him to bomb his enemies--oh, wait, we can't do that, it would be interfering. :lol:
"The EU, meanwhile, said it could deploy an armed force to Libya within days to ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies, said Michael Mann, a spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
Mann said a "concept of operations" has been approved by the European Union's 27 countries, outlining various possible courses of action. But Mann said the details of the operation, including how many people and what equipment would be needed, would await the specifics of any U.N. request.
The EU has no standing army, and the personnel and equipment would have be donated by member countries."
Seems like decision making by committee. How well will, or does this, work? Especially for a military action it would seem to be quite problematic. Or is there a more streamlined leadership in place for the actual tasks being undertaken? However, I do commend the EU for taking the actions.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 12:24:58 PM
I love the double speak of "we won't provide weapons, but we will provide body armor and commo..." as if that wasn't just as important as a gun to a military force.
edit: And of course, we will also bomb the shit out of your enemies as well.
BUT WE WONT GIVE YOU WEAPONS, WHY, THAT WOULD BE INTERFERING!!!
Hmm... I still say that NATO/US or other ground forces will be intervening, rather than letting Gaddafi survive from this. His regime surviving might be the most dangerous, as he plots revenge by sponsoring terrorists. Plus him surviving in the face of the UN and NATO would be seen as a loss for them all, likely emboldening other tyrants in the future.
Advisors, eh? :hmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historyplace.com%2Funitedstates%2Fvietnam%2Fvietnam-map.gif&hash=49a9773943afdf9f705edf45600a6c2db0e328cf)
Quote from: Caliga on April 19, 2011, 12:51:47 PM
Advisors, eh? :hmm:
My demand is that they get as good music from the Libya War as we got from the Vietnam war. Iraq and Afghanistan only gave us country music.
Quote from: dps on April 19, 2011, 12:29:56 PM
If you bomb a man's enemies for him, you help him for a day, but if you teach him to bomb his enemies--oh, wait, we can't do that, it would be interfering. :lol:
I think that's already been proven to be worthy of the Nice Idea In Principle, Not So Great In Practice pile.
The EU will most definitely not be interested in heavily armed Libyans on its doorstep, and since France suddenly decided to be the hawk this time around, all there will be is bombing and possibly some ground force with the same mission as in Bosnia, Rwanda and the likes. The mission? To stand around and tell murderous thugs that hurting civilians is unacceptable.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2011, 01:30:24 PM
I was off. 5.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13092451
Your link has seven:
UK
France
US
Canada
Belgium
Norway
Denmark
... or did you discount some of them for Angerian reasons?
Well, it didn't take long for the Vietnam parallels. :lol:
We should send American boys to do what African boys ought to be doing for themselves.
Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2011, 01:39:58 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2011, 01:30:24 PM
I was off. 5.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13092451
Your link has seven:
UK
France
US
Canada
Belgium
Norway
Denmark
... or did you discount some of them for Angerian reasons?
Belgium and Denmark aren't real.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 19, 2011, 05:13:52 PMBelgium and Denmark aren't real.
I figured it was something like that. Carry on then.
Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2011, 05:16:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 19, 2011, 05:13:52 PMBelgium and Denmark aren't real.
I figured it was something like that. Carry on then.
Actually, I miscounted. But for this silly war's sake, my silly answer stands. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 19, 2011, 05:13:52 PM
Belgium and Denmark aren't real.
Guess, the bombs we drop on Gaddafi's forces isnt real either... :P
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 20, 2011, 08:28:59 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 19, 2011, 05:13:52 PM
Belgium and Denmark aren't real.
Guess, the bombs we drop on Gaddafi's forces isnt real either... :P
I just assume the bombs are filled with flour or paint.
Well, yeah, man, you see, like, all the tanks we come up against are bigger and better than ours, so all we can hope to do is, like, scare 'em away, y'know. This gun is an ordinary 76mm but we add this piece of pipe onto it, and the Krauts think, like, maybe it's a 90mm. We got our own ammunition, it's filled with paint. When we fire it, it makes... pretty pictures. Scares the hell outta people! We have a loudspeaker here, and when we go into battle we play music, very loud. It kind of... calms us down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21photographers.html?_r=1&ref=africa (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21photographers.html?_r=1&ref=africa)
Quote'Restrepo' Director Is Killed in Libya
By C.J. CHIVERS
Published: April 20, 2011
BENGHAZI, Libya — Tim Hetherington, the Oscar-nominated film director and conflict photographer who produced the film "Restrepo," was killed in the besieged city of Misurata on Wednesday, and three photographers working beside him were wounded.
The wounds to two of the photographers — Chris Hondros and Guy Martin — were grave, according to a colleague at the triage center where they were being treated Wednesday night. Their prospects for survival were not immediately clear.
Mr. Hondros, an American working for the Getty photo agency, suffered a severe brain injury and was in extremely critical condition, according to a colleague who was with at the triage center. He had been revived and was clinging to life in the evening, the colleague said.
Mr. Martin, a British citizen working for the Panos photo agency, had shrapnel wounds and was undergoing vascular surgery Wednesday night, according to the same account. He was in surgery Wednesday night.
The fourth photographer, Michael Christopher Brown, suffered shrapnel injuries but his life was not in danger.
Misurata, Libya's third largest city, has been cut off by land from the rest of Libya by military forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. It has been the scene of intensive, close-quarters fighting for weeks. Hundreds of Libyans have been confirmed killed.
The photographers had reached the city's port on a sea voyage from Benghazi, the rebel capital. The early reports said they had been working together near the front lines when they were struck by a rocket-propelled grenade.
Adding to British advisers being sent.
Quote
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/20/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T1
Italy, France sending troops to advise Libyan rebels
Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- France and Italy announced Wednesday that they will send military officers to advise rebels fighting for the ouster of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's regime.
Following a similar announcement by the British government Tuesday, French government spokesman Francois Baroin said a "small number" of French troops were being sent to advise the rebels' Transitional National Council.
French Defense Minister Gérard Longuet again ruled out sending ground troops to fight alongside the rebels. "This is a real issue that deserves an international debate," he said, adding, "We are working within the framework of the 1973 resolution," a reference to the U.N. resolution that authorized action in Libya. "You cannot please everyone all the time," he said.
Italy will send military advisers to train the rebels in self-defense tactics, Italian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maurizio Massari announced.
Britain said Tuesday it is sending a contingent of experienced military officers to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in an advisory role. The team will work with the Transitional National Council on how the opposition can improve military organizational structures, communications and logistics, the British Foreign Office said. It will also assist in the delivery of critically needed aid.
"This deployment is fully within the terms of UNSCR 1973 both in respect of civilian protection and its provision expressly ruling out a foreign occupation force on Libyan soil," Foreign Secretary William Hague said.
The United States is not moving toward sending military advisers, according to a U.S. military official with knowledge of ongoing discussions inside the U.S. military. The White House remains adamant there will be no U.S. "boots on the ground," although U.S. intelligence operatives remain in Libya, the source said.
The official pointed out there is a mixed record for U.S. military advisers in past conflicts. Perhaps the most obvious example, the official said, was the initial years of the Vietnam conflict when the U.S. military began with an advisory role that later grew. And if the United States sent advisory troops to Libya, it would then have to provide security, transportation, supplies and other gear, and would have to have units on standby for emergency extraction if they ran into trouble, the source said.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recommended that President Barack Obama authorize the U.S. government sending up to $25 million in non-lethal commodities and services to support Libyan rebels, including the Transitional National Council, two senior administration officials said Wednesday.
In Libya, rebel spokesman Jalal al Gallal called Wednesday's announcements by France and Italy "positive."
"We are pleased with the results, and I think it's a prelude to more cooperation," he said. "The more advisers we have on the ground, the better coordination we'll have on the battlefield."
The announcements from the European nations came as Transitional National Council President Mustafa Abdul Jalil was in Europe for meetings with leaders.
"I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the Arabic countries, in particular Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Every Arab country has its own issues and maybe some were later than others in giving their support but we would like to thank the Arabic countries and the European countries, NATO, the U.S., Australia and Canada and all those countries that are supporting this Libyan revolution."
Qatar and the UAE are among the countries contributing to the international effort in Libya.
Libyan Foreign Minister Abdul Ati al-Obeidi on Tuesday blasted Britain's announcement that it was sending military advisers. In an interview with ITN, he called it a step toward "confrontation."
The efforts to bolster the rebellion come as Libya's main opposition body pleaded for an international military intervention.
Libyans are "being slaughtered every day by the Gadhafi forces," rebel spokesman Shamsiddin Abdulmolah told CNN Tuesday.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Wednesday said some of the Libyan government's attacks on the besieged city of Misrata could constitute international crimes.
A statement from Navi Pillay's office said she condemned "the reported repeated use of cluster munitions and heavy weaponry by Libyan government forces in their attempt to regain control of the besieged city of Misrata, and said that such attacks on densely populated urban areas, resulting in substantial civilian casualties, could amount to international crimes."
"The pro-government forces besieging the city, including their commanders and all other personnel, should be aware that -- with the International Criminal Court investigating possible crimes -- their orders and actions will be subject to intense scrutiny," Pillay said in the statement. "Under international law, the deliberate targeting of medical facilities is a war crime, and the deliberate targeting or reckless endangerment of civilians may also amount to serious violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law."
UNICEF, the U.N. children's agency, said Wednesday that 20 children have been killed and "countless others injured" in Misrata alone.
Among rebels, calls for help have been increasing each day.
Aid agencies are afraid of going to areas such as Misrata, which is being targeted by Gadhafi troops, opposition activist Mohamed Ibrahim said. "Some of them, they come. But most of them, they come near ... they hear the shelling and everything and they go back," he said.
At least 27 people have been killed and 142 have been injured this week, according to an opposition spokesman who wanted to be identified only as "Mohammed" for safety reasons.
Aid groups have been attempting to pluck desperate people from Misrata, which is hemmed in by Gadhafi's forces on three sides.
The only escape route is by the city's port -- an area witnesses said has also been shelled by Gadhafi's forces.
For those left behind, witnesses say, the dire situation continues to deteriorate. The city is still without water, electricity, and telecommunications, Mohammed said Tuesday. "Shelling has moved out of the industrial areas to the residential areas, and it is still going on."
Rebel spokesman Abdulmolah said the opposition's Transitional National Council is not opposed to a humanitarian mission on the ground.
"Something needs to be done so we can stop the bloodshed of our people," he said.
But "we do not want any foreign military presence or any international fighters along with our rebels," he added.
Libyan Foreign Minister al-Obeidi said the government would consider a cease-fire in Misrata if it was on both sides. "I think the only way is give peace a chance" through a general cease-fire, he told ITN.
NATO is leading an international military operation that includes targeting Gadhafi's military resources with airstrikes.
NATO said the operation has destroyed seven ammunition bunkers in the Tripoli area as well as equipment in several other parts of the country this week.
NATO attacked three regime battle tanks and a vehicle-mounted artillery piece in and around Misrata on Tuesday, British military spokesman Maj. Gen. John Lorimer said in a statement Wednesday.
Abdulmolah said NATO strikes may have also prevented more destruction in eastern Libya, particularly near Benghazi.
"We received reports that Gadhafi forces were mobilizing their troops and their mobile missiles/rockets systems from Brega towards Ajdabiya to bomb Benghazi. They were stopped by (Tuesday's) NATO strikes," he said.
But he said the opposition wants "technical assistance" and weapons "because we are facing a merciless tyrant who wants to slaughter his own people just because they asked for freedom and liberty."
There are some WWII Desert War jokes to be made here.
sucks to be the rebel unit that gets the Italian advisers... :lol:
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 20, 2011, 04:33:07 PM
sucks to be the rebel unit that gets the Italian advisers... :lol:
They will become experts at retreat and surrender tactics. :)
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 20, 2011, 02:04:09 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21photographers.html?_r=1&ref=africa (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21photographers.html?_r=1&ref=africa)
Quote'Restrepo' Director Is Killed in Libya
By C.J. CHIVERS
Published: April 20, 2011
BENGHAZI, Libya — Tim Hetherington, the Oscar-nominated film director and conflict photographer who produced the film "Restrepo," was killed in the besieged city of Misurata on Wednesday, and three photographers working beside him were wounded.
The wounds to two of the photographers — Chris Hondros and Guy Martin — were grave, according to a colleague at the triage center where they were being treated Wednesday night. Their prospects for survival were not immediately clear.
Hondros has passed away as well. :(
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 20, 2011, 02:04:09 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21photographers.html?_r=1&ref=africa (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21photographers.html?_r=1&ref=africa)
Quote'Restrepo' Director Is Killed in Libya
By C.J. CHIVERS
Published: April 20, 2011
BENGHAZI, Libya — Tim Hetherington, the Oscar-nominated film director and conflict photographer who produced the film "Restrepo," was killed in the besieged city of Misurata on Wednesday, and three photographers working beside him were wounded.
The wounds to two of the photographers — Chris Hondros and Guy Martin — were grave, according to a colleague at the triage center where they were being treated Wednesday night. Their prospects for survival were not immediately clear.
Mr. Hondros, an American working for the Getty photo agency, suffered a severe brain injury and was in extremely critical condition, according to a colleague who was with at the triage center. He had been revived and was clinging to life in the evening, the colleague said.
Mr. Martin, a British citizen working for the Panos photo agency, had shrapnel wounds and was undergoing vascular surgery Wednesday night, according to the same account. He was in surgery Wednesday night.
The fourth photographer, Michael Christopher Brown, suffered shrapnel injuries but his life was not in danger.
Misurata, Libya's third largest city, has been cut off by land from the rest of Libya by military forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. It has been the scene of intensive, close-quarters fighting for weeks. Hundreds of Libyans have been confirmed killed.
The photographers had reached the city's port on a sea voyage from Benghazi, the rebel capital. The early reports said they had been working together near the front lines when they were struck by a rocket-propelled grenade.
That's tragic, and despite what some of us may say about journalists, there are some among them who display singular courage.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 20, 2011, 04:33:07 PM
sucks to be the rebel unit that gets the Italian advisers... :lol:
Gonna be kind of tough to mount a recoiless rifle onto a moped.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 20, 2011, 10:09:34 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 20, 2011, 04:33:07 PM
sucks to be the rebel unit that gets the Italian advisers... :lol:
Gonna be kind of tough to mount a recoiless rifle onto a moped.
Not that hard.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg21.imageshack.us%2Fimg21%2F8760%2Fvespabazooka.jpg&hash=186d039658e691ba4458b802557ff122e22742b8) (http://img21.imageshack.us/i/vespabazooka.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespa_150_TAP
Chris Hondro's last photos:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fnet%2F20110420%2Fcapt.95bd9f6693eb44f41614ede9f525c89d.jpeg&hash=a8ed55b740fcf7aa92c4168b6850444f03e002ce)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fnet%2F20110420%2Fcapt.37f42f949f74607d494c21f86cd4f282.jpeg&hash=8472707ce76fca0c6eee2e0fa69264ce8a88ce17)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fnet%2F20110420%2Fcapt.13e47a68188aa74a076cf32dc73929d3.jpeg&hash=44655b2e41a6e7b04a31bf36210a1a7438091ebf)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fnet%2F20110420%2Fcapt.3529878957b36c3566648a3237dce186.jpeg&hash=28d18e7ed8f764abecbf68bdc71c2009740d401a)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fnet%2F20110420%2Fcapt.30b9a3770d049f457fd1590f8c601035.jpeg&hash=6c8a7d0d1028763a888513f6eef02d57dd8f7797)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fnet%2F20110420%2Fcapt.f31f6b0ffb1dacfa8f946b83209fdd7f.jpeg&hash=30a5b7e328c5052412bc7b6106a04ab75fabb125)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fnet%2F20110420%2Fcapt.00cb8b3ab2dbb8bdcb959bd8162966b6.jpeg&hash=7adce0c3e46e5d608be336cd666eab2fc3a1fa14)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fnet%2F20110420%2Fcapt.1f4d27bf9343e047d1937a6515e5adbf.jpeg&hash=69aeaa6673c05aa75cb2e9550d6a18fbde603859)
Quote from: KRonn on April 20, 2011, 02:35:00 PM
Adding to British advisers being sent.
What they need to do is send a dozen British NCOs to kick the rebels into shape, rather than officers.
Quote from: jamesww on April 21, 2011, 05:42:45 AM
Quote from: KRonn on April 20, 2011, 02:35:00 PM
Adding to British advisers being sent.
What they need to do is send a dozen British NCOs to kick the rebels into shape, rather than officers.
I think that British NCOs are a bit to much to handle for your average level of Arab pride...
Quote
Obama OKs use of armed drone aircraft in Libya
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama has approved the use of armed Predator drone aircraft in Libya to improve the precision of low-level attacks on ground targets, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.
The first Predator mission since Obama's go-ahead was flown Thursday but the aircraft — armed with Hellfire missiles — turned back early due to poor weather conditions, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a news conference with Gates.
"President Obama has said that where we have some unique capabilities, he is willing to use those," Gates said. "And in fact he has approved the use of armed Predators."
"What they will bring that is unique to the conflict is their ability to get down lower, therefore to be able to get better visibility on targets that have started to dig themselves into defensive positions," Cartwright said. "They are uniquely suited for urban areas."
Cartwright did not specify what targets the aborted Predator mission Thursday was intended to strike.
Some reports from Libya:
Quote2 brothers' lives upended in Libyan fight
By BEN HUBBARD, Associated Press
ABOARD THE IONIAN SPIRIT – The scene was testimony to the wrenching changes war brings. It turned Dr. Ali Salhi, a Libyan dentist, into a battlefield medic. In a ship's corridor transformed into an intensive care unit, the patient he hovered over was his little brother, a lawyer who became a fighter to defend their home city Misrata from Moammar Gadhafi's forces.
Near a stack of life vests, Khaled Salhi lay unconscious on a mattress, a hunk of shrapnel lodged in his brain. Ali silently watched the tubes running into his brother's mouth and nose and listened to the beep of the heart monitor. Khaled hasn't woken up since he was hit.
But the 33-year-old Ali doesn't regret that his brother, six years younger than him, fought.
"If we all prevented our brothers from fighting, there would be no resistance to Gadhafi," he said Thursday. "My brother might die and others as well, but we have to defend our city."
On Thursday, the Ionian Spirit, a Greek passenger ferry, carried away more than 1,000 people fleeing Misrata. Also aboard the vessel, which docked in Benghazi late Thursday, were the bodies of an Oscar-nominated documentary maker from Britain and an American photographer who were killed covering clashes Wednesday.
Areas below deck were turned into impromptu clinics for the wounded. The ship's bar-disco was settled by Libyan families. Every hallway and seat was filled by others, including African and Asian workers, sleeping, eating, taking the opportunity of their first electricity in days to charge their cell-phones.
The two-month-old anti-Gadhafi rebellion has upturned lives across Libya, but perhaps nowhere else more completely than in Misrata, Libya's third largest city and the most significant rebel stronghold in the regime-controlled western half of the country. For nearly two months, Gadhafi forces have surrounded the city from three sides, pounding it with shelling and rocket fire, with ground troops and rebel fighters battling building by building along the main boulevard in the center of town.
Thousands have fled the city of 300,000 in ships from Misrata's Mediterranean port, on the more than daylong journey across the Bay of Sirte to the de facto rebel capital Benghazi. The Ionian Spirit's journey was organized by the International Organization for Migration.
The ship's passengers include dozens of injured and shell-shocked Libyans, hundreds of migrant workers from Africa, as well as smaller groups from Pakistan, Nigeria and the Philippines.
Their presence on a tourist vessel created bizarre contrasts. Many of the Africans were impoverished laborers who sneaked across the desert and entered Libya illegally to look for work. On the ferry, they took over nearly every seat, table and much of the floor in the ship's main cabin and outside deck.
Nearby sat 24 Filipinos, among them 16 who came to teach at the university in Misrata for salaries five times higher than what they could earn at home. The others worked as nurses or factory engineers.
Upstairs, the Panorama Bar holds more than 100 Libyans, mostly families with children, who tried to flee the city by tugboat before the ferry arrived. Now they sit and sleep at cocktail tables while their children race around and spin on the padded swivel chairs. Shutters on the bar have been tightly closed, and the conservative Muslim families have drawn the curtains across a small dance floor to provide privacy for nursing women.
"It's like a hotel," said Ahmed Stayta, 48, who was traveling with his wife and sister and four children, the youngest a one-month-old girl.
His wife Faiza, a lawyer, said they fled their home about two moths ago when fighting made the area unsafe. They lodged with friends near the port, but that area soon became unsafe too, she said.
"All the firing is random," she said. "You hear a rocket and you have no idea if it will come down on your house."
The family decided to flee after the shelling hit oil and milk factories. They were aboard a tiny tugboat waiting for the weather to improve enough for them to sail when the more hearty ferry pulled into Misrata's port on Wednesday, so they arranged to get on board.
The ship also carries an improvised medical unit caring for 58 injured Libyans. Some have been set up in sleeper cabins. Others are on mattresses on the hallway floor, their saline bags hung from handrails and doorknobs.
Their injuries reflect the city's, said Dr. Ahmed Jaaka. About half are civilians and half are fighters, he said. Three quarters have blast and shrapnel wounds from shelling, many with head injuries and shattered bones. The rest have gunshot wounds.
Four patients, all fighters, are in intensive care, one of them Khaled Salhi, who was hit by a mortar blast a week ago. He was set up in a sort of alcove near the reception desk on a lower deck, tended by his brother Ali.
Much of the shrapnel that peppered Khaled's limbs and chest was removed before he entered the ship, Ali said, but a large piece of metal remained in his brain, held stable by the white bandages circling his head. Sometimes his eyes flutter, or he moves his head or lifts his arm, which Ali loosely tied to a duffel bag so he doesn't hurt himself.
Before the uprising, the brothers were both educated professionals, seeking to advance in their careers, said Ali. He worked at a dental clinic while 27-year-old Khaled was an aide at a law firm. Khaled had graduated with high grades four years earlier but lacked the family connections needed to find good jobs under the Gadhafi system, Ali said. His brother was frustrated, but had never considered fighting the regime.
When fighting broke out, Ali abandoned his clinic and rushed to Hikma Hospital, where he volunteered with an ambulance crew. For weeks, he moved around the city picking up wounded people and rushing them to the overwhelmed hospital, he said.
His brother went to fight Gadhafi's troops, first with rocks and Molotov cocktails, later with guns captured from security offices or fleeing government forces.
"He felt he had to join because the fighting was so close to our home," Ali said. The family lived on Tripoli Street, the downtown avenue that has been scene of the most intense clashes.
"At first, my mother would tell him to stay home," Ali said. But when Gadhafi's forces started shelling the city and worries grew of a slaughter if the city fell, she changed her mind.
Early on, a sniper shot Khaled through the wrist, Ali said, pointing to the X-shaped scar left by the operation. Ten days later, Ali said, his brother was back on the front.
A week ago, Khaled dropped by the house where the family has been staying since fleeing their home. Ali saw him there.
"He came to check in on his mom and sisters and then walked out the door," Ali recalled.
A few hours later, Ali was at the hospital when his torn brother reached the emergency room.
QuoteLibyan rebels report gains in Misrata fighting
By KARIN LAUB and MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press
TRIPOLI, Libya – Rebels battled Moammar Gadhafi's troops Thursday for control of central Misrata, driving dozens of snipers from tall buildings in hours of urban warfare and gaining a tactical advantage in the only major city held by the opposition in western Libya, witnesses said.
The Libyan government, meanwhile, ramped up its rhetoric against NATO, warning that "it will be hell" for the alliance if it sends in ground troops, even though Britain's prime minister said the Western nations were not moving toward such a deployment.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said President Barack Obama has approved the use of armed Predator drones in Libya. The drones allow for low-level precision attacks and are uniquely suited for urban areas such as Misrata, where NATO airpower has been unable to protect civilians when Gadhafi's forces are operating inside the city.
Also Thursday, rebels captured a Libyan border crossing into Tunisia, forcing government soldiers to flee over the frontier and possibly opening a new channel for opposition forces in Gadhafi's bastion in western part of the country.
At least seven people were killed in Thursday's fighting for the main Misrata thoroughfare of Tripoli Street, bringing to 20 the number slain in three days in Libya's third-largest city.
Misrata has been besieged by government forces for nearly two months, with human rights groups estimating hundreds of people killed. Tripoli Street is the site where two Western photojournalists were killed Wednesday as the rebels tried to dislodge the snipers loyal to Gadhafi perched on rooftops.
The street, which stretches from the heart of Misrata to a major highway southwest of the city of 300,000 people, has become a front line for the rebels and Gadhafi's forces.
The rebels took over several buildings along parts of the street, enabling them to cut off supplies to a Gadhafi unit and dozens of rooftop snipers who have terrorized civilians and kept them trapped in their homes, said a doctor who identified himself only as Ayman for fear of retaliation.
"This battle cost us lots of blood and martyrs," the doctor said.
Residents celebrated and chanted "God is great" after the snipers left a battle-scarred insurance building that is the highest point in central Misrata, according to a witness who identified himself only as Sohaib.
"Thanks to God, the snipers fled, leaving nothing behind at the insurance building after they were cut off from supplies — ammunition, food and water — for days," added another resident, Abdel Salam.
He called it "a major victory" because the structure gave the pro-Gadhafi forces a commanding view of the city.
In Tripoli, government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim claimed Gadhafi forces control more than 80 percent of the city and the rebels hold "the seaport and the area surrounding it."
Residents said that at the beginning of the battle for Misrata, the government deployed tanks and shelled the city indiscriminately, forcing residents to flee their homes and businesses, which were taken over by Gadhafi's forces. NATO commanders have admitted their airpower was limited in being able to protect civilians in cities like Misrata, which was the main mission of the international air campaign.
Abdel Salam, who asked to be identified only by his given name for fear of retribution, said Gadhafi's forces were using tanks and rocket-propelled grenades.
"Col. Gadhafi's troops continue their vicious attacks, including the siege of Misrata," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Washington. "There are even reports that Gadhafi forces may have used cluster bombs against their own people."
Libyan officials have persistently denied the use of cluster bombs, which indiscriminately spray small bomblets over a wide area and are particularly lethal in residential areas. However, Human Rights Watch has said it found evidence of cluster bombs being used by government forces in Misrata.
Earlier this week, Britain, Italy and France said they were sending military officers to advise the rebels, prompting speculation that this was a step toward sending in ground forces at a time when NATO airstrikes were failing to break the battlefield stalemate or protect civilians in Misrata.
Ibrahim, the government spokesman, warned that NATO would find itself entangled in fighting ordinary Libyans if its soldiers were to set foot on Libyan soil.
"We are arming the whole population, not to fight the rebels, by the way, because the rebels are very easy — they are not a challenge for us," Ibrahim said. "What we are fighting is NATO now."
Ibrahim said the Gadhafi regime is ready to observe an immediate cease-fire and negotiate the terms of political transition. Rebels have said Gadhafi must step down before such talks can begin.
"We are ready and accepting peace ... but we are also ready for war," Ibrahim said. "If NATO comes, it will be hell."
But British Prime Minister David Cameron insisted NATO isn't edging toward deploying ground troops in Libya. Italy, France and Britain are sending experienced combat advisers to help train and organize Libya's opposition forces dislodge Gadhafi after four decades in power.
Ministers have insisted the officers won't play any role in offensives against Gadhafi's troops — and have repeatedly said NATO and allies won't overstep boundaries set out in the United Nations resolution authorizing action in Libya.
"We're not allowed, rightly, to have an invading army, or an occupying army," Cameron told BBC Scotland radio. "That's not what we want, that's not what the Libyans want, that's not what the world wants."
The capture of the border crossing with Tunisia in western Libya followed three days of intense fighting outside the desert town of Nalut, about 140 miles (240 kilometers) southwest of Tripoli, said a rebel leader, Shaban Abu Sitta. The area was briefly in hands of anti-government forces last month before Libyan troops moved in.
Holding the Dhuheiba border crossing could open important supply routes for anti-Gadhafi forces and give the rebels another foothold in western Libya.
After taking control of the crossing early Thursday, rebels raised the pre-Gadhafi tricolor flag.
In recent weeks, more than 10,000 Libyans from the border region had crossed into Tunisia, and 1,200 found shelter in a tent camp near the village of Dhuheiba, a few miles from the border. When people in the camp learned of the takeover of the crossing, they chanted, "The rebels brought freedom to their town."
By afternoon, hundreds of Libyan refugees had assembled at the crossing, waiting to return home.
Also Thursday, the Greek passenger ferry Ionian Spirit carried more than 1,000 people fleeing Misrata to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in eastern Libya, where 30 ambulances were waiting.
The ship's passengers included dozens of wounded and shell-shocked Libyans, hundreds of migrant workers from Africa, as well as smaller groups from Pakistan, Nigeria and the Philippines. Four of the injured were seriously hurt
It also carried the bodies of two photojournalists killed in Misrata on Wednesday: Chris Hondros, a New York-based photographer for Getty Images, and British-born Tim Hetherington, co-director of the 2010 Afghanistan war documentary "Restrepo" that was nominated for an Academy Award. Also aboard was the body of a Ukrainian doctor who was killed by an artillery blast in Misrata.
Several banners were hung to greet the ferry. One said: "U.K. and U.S., your blood was mixed with ours in Misrata."
If NATO is serious about saving Misrata they'll have to be able to take out individual mortar teams and those teeny Grad rocket launchers. Which means special forces combined with loitering assets like the A-10 and AC-130 gunships. Hell, even Reaper drones might do it.
Dunno how effective Gaddafi's SA-7's might be against them though.
The people in Misrata can handle the snipers albeit slowly.
QuoteResidents celebrated and chanted "God is great" after the snipers left a battle-scarred insurance building that is the highest point in central Misrata, according to a witness who identified himself only as Sohaib.
"Thanks to God, the snipers fled, leaving nothing behind at the insurance building after they were cut off from supplies — ammunition, food and water — for days," added another resident, Abdel Salam.
He called it "a major victory" because the structure gave the pro-Gadhafi forces a commanding view of the city.
Quote from: citizen k on April 21, 2011, 10:37:27 PM
The people in Misrata can handle the snipers albeit slowly.
QuoteResidents celebrated and chanted "God is great" after the snipers left a battle-scarred insurance building that is the highest point in central Misrata, according to a witness who identified himself only as Sohaib.
"Thanks to God, the snipers fled, leaving nothing behind at the insurance building after they were cut off from supplies — ammunition, food and water — for days," added another resident, Abdel Salam.
He called it "a major victory" because the structure gave the pro-Gadhafi forces a commanding view of the city.
So, sneak in, fire off all ammo, sneak back out. Rinse and repeat. :menace:
Quote from: Legbiter on April 21, 2011, 10:44:16 PM
Quote from: citizen k on April 21, 2011, 10:37:27 PM
The people in Misrata can handle the snipers albeit slowly.
QuoteResidents celebrated and chanted "God is great" after the snipers left a battle-scarred insurance building that is the highest point in central Misrata, according to a witness who identified himself only as Sohaib.
"Thanks to God, the snipers fled, leaving nothing behind at the insurance building after they were cut off from supplies — ammunition, food and water — for days," added another resident, Abdel Salam.
He called it "a major victory" because the structure gave the pro-Gadhafi forces a commanding view of the city.
So, sneak in, fire off all ammo, sneak back out. Rinse and repeat. :menace:
In this conflict is anyone who doesnt run around firing from the hip or alternatively posing in front of cameras, a "sniper"... <_<
Quote
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/22/mccain-travels-libya-meet-rebel-forces/
McCain Lauds Anti-Qaddafi Forces During Libya Visit
BENGHAZI, Libya -- U.S. Sen. John McCain, one of the strongest proponents in Congress of the American military intervention in Libya, said Friday that Libyan rebels fighting Muammar Qaddafi's troops are his heroes.
The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee made the remark after arriving in Benghazi, a city that has been the opposition capital in the rebel-held eastern Libya.
McCain said he was in Benghazi "to get an on the ground assessment of the situation" and planned to meet with the rebel National Transition Council, the de-facto government in the eastern half of the country, and members of the rebel military.
"They are my heroes," McCain said of the rebels as he walked out of a local hotel in Benghazi. He was traveling in an armored Mercedes jeep and had a security detail. A few Libyans waved American flags as his vehicle drove past.
McCain's visit is the highest yet by an American official to the rebel-held east and a boost to the anti-Qaddafi forces. Details of the trip were shrouded in secrecy due to heightened security in a country fiercely divided by the two-month-old anti-Qaddafi rebellion.
McCain's trip comes as Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Thursday that President Barack Obama has authorized armed Predator drones against forces loyal to Qaddafi. It is the first time that drones will be used for airstrikes since the United States turned over control of the operation to NATO on April 4.
The rebels have complained that NATO airstrikes since then have largely been ineffective in stopping Qaddafi forces.
Invoking the humanitarian disasters in Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s, McCain pressed for U.S. military intervention in Libya in February, weeks before the U.N. Security Council authorized military action to protect civilians and impose a no-fly zone.
When Obama acted with limited congressional consultation, McCain -- who was the 2008 Republican presidential contender running against Obama -- defended the president, saying he couldn't wait for Congress to take even a few days to debate the use of force. If he had, "there would have been nothing left to save in Benghazi," the rebels' de-facto capital.
But as the U.S. handed operational control over to NATO -- and withdrew U.S. combat aircraft -- McCain criticized the administration.
"For the United States to withdraw our unique offensive capabilities at this time would send the wrong signal," McCain said. He said the U.S. must not fail in Libya and said he spoke as someone experienced in a lost conflict, a reference to his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, where he served as a Navy pilot.
McCain also has pushed for arming the rebels, saying the U.S. and its partners cannot allow Qaddafi to consolidate his hold on one section of the country and create a military deadlock.
Quote from: citizen k on April 21, 2011, 10:37:27 PM
The people in Misrata can handle the snipers albeit slowly.
QuoteResidents celebrated and chanted "God is great" after the snipers left a battle-scarred insurance building that is the highest point in central Misrata, according to a witness who identified himself only as Sohaib.
"Thanks to God, the snipers fled, leaving nothing behind at the insurance building after they were cut off from supplies — ammunition, food and water — for days," added another resident, Abdel Salam.
He called it "a major victory" because the structure gave the pro-Gadhafi forces a commanding view of the city.
No, not the insurance building. :cry:
Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2011, 08:51:57 AM
Quote from: citizen k on April 21, 2011, 10:37:27 PM
The people in Misrata can handle the snipers albeit slowly.
QuoteResidents celebrated and chanted "God is great" after the snipers left a battle-scarred insurance building that is the highest point in central Misrata, according to a witness who identified himself only as Sohaib.
"Thanks to God, the snipers fled, leaving nothing behind at the insurance building after they were cut off from supplies — ammunition, food and water — for days," added another resident, Abdel Salam.
He called it "a major victory" because the structure gave the pro-Gadhafi forces a commanding view of the city.
No, not the insurance building. :cry:
Lol, I immediately thought of you when I read that.
Did it look like this?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj143%2Ftheroguester%2Fbarad-dur-sauron-droid-300x228.jpg&hash=128c11307b39ab2e69bda0c33f7da8f6fc25bd0e)
Quote from: Maximus on April 22, 2011, 09:04:57 AM
Did it look like this?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj143%2Ftheroguester%2Fbarad-dur-sauron-droid-300x228.jpg&hash=128c11307b39ab2e69bda0c33f7da8f6fc25bd0e)
that's one very visible sniper
That's not the sniper, that's the previous resident.
Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2011, 08:51:57 AM
No, not the insurance building. :cry:
Think of it this way, they could write off their own claim.
Gaddafi's compound was hammered today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42737249/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
A rare sight, a rebel who looks like he know what he is doing...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d5_1303580637 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d5_1303580637)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F262a04p.gif&hash=c252f46583f4537dd4c834c779a37765059bd0a7)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwpc.281e.edgecastcdn.net%2F80281E%2Fu%2Fu%2Fthumbs%2F2008%2FJan%2F6%2F9337_458_avatar.gif%3Fd5e8cc8eccfb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bad7954a47d2dee381%26amp%3Bec_rate%3D350&hash=98bb2a57fbd33c83eaee18a2702fa34c2a3e1a5f)
If you listen closely, you can hear them screaming their islamic filth at the end there.
Or actually, you don't have to listen closely, their religious chanting is all through the video.
"This is not a religious conflict, we don't need to worry about the muslims".
Fucking 'tards. Feeding the fucking trolls AGAIN.
what's this, religious chanting in a warzone? :o
Quote
Libya: pro-Gaddafi forces cross into Tunisia
Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi crossed into neighbouring Tunisia and fought a gun battle with Tunisian troops in a frontier town as Libya's conflict spilt beyond its borders.
12:47PM BST 29 Apr 2011
Pro-Gaddafi forces fired shells into the town of Dehiba, damaging buildings and injuring at least one resident, and a group of them drove into the town in a truck, local people and a Reuters photographer in the town said.
The Libyan government troops were pursuing anti-Gaddafi rebels from the restive Western Mountains region of Libya who fled into Tunisia in the past few days after Gaddafi forces overran the border post the rebels had earlier seized.
"There were lots of clashes in the town this morning. Lots of gunshots. The Tunisian military clashed with Gaddafi's forces ... Some of Gaddafi's people were killed," said Reuters photographer Zoubeir Souissi from the town.
"There are a lot of Gaddafi's people who were injured. They are in the hospital in Dehiba," he said.
Two residents also told Reuters that shells had fallen on the town from pro-Gaddafi positions across the border in Libya.
"Rounds from the bombardment are falling on houses.... A Tunisian woman was injured," one of the residents, called Ali, told Reuters by telephone.
He said later the fighting and shelling had stopped. "The Tunisian army is combing the town. We have no idea about the fate of Gaddafi's forces there because the Tunisian army closed the gates to the town and nobody is allowed to enter."
A Libyan rebel said anti-Gaddafi fighters had retaken control of the border crossing near Dehiba. The main crossing into Libya, two hours' drive to the north, remains firmly under Libyan government control.
"Right here at this point I'm looking at the new (rebel) flag flying up there at the border. The rebels have got control of it, the freedom fighters. We're just in the process of opening it up," rebel Akram el Muradi said by telephone.
Tunisia's government late on Thursday issued a statement condemning incursions by Libyan forces after shells fired by Gaddafi loyalists fell into the desert near the border.
"Given the gravity of what has happened ... the Tunisian authorities have informed the Libyans of their extreme indignation and demand measures to put an immediate stop to these violations," a statement from the foreign ministry said.
Friday's clashes marked the first time that Libyan government ground forces had crossed the border and entered a Tunisian town.
Residents said that a crowd of local people gathered in Dehiba on Friday morning to try to prevent pro-Gaddafi forces from entering the town.
They said the Tunisian military fired in the air to disperse them, and urged the demonstrators to seek shelter from the shelling inside their homes.
Tunisia toppled its own veteran leader, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, in a revolution earlier this year and many people there are sympathetic to the rebels fighting Gaddafi's forces.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8483234/Libya-pro-Gaddafi-forces-cross-into-Tunisia.html
Gaddaffi the Elder sez: Carthago delenda est.
Ok, he's totally got my support now. :w00t:
Damn, that's some crazy shit. What the hell does he think this will accomplish? :huh:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2011, 03:50:06 AM
Damn, that's some crazy shit. What the hell does he think this will accomplish? :huh:
I'd guess at first glance that it wasn't deliberate.
Bunch of Gaddafis were just nailed, though none seem to be important. This mission creep is beggining too look like mission leap.
Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2011, 06:15:07 PM
Bunch of Gaddafis were just nailed, though none seem to be important. This mission creep is beggining too look like mission leap.
His son and some grandkids.
Quote from: Grauniad
Muammar Gaddafi son killed by Nato air strike – Libyan government
Saif al-Arab and three of Muammar Gaddafi's grandsons killed, according to reports – but the Libyan leader was unharmed
A Nato air strike in Tripoli has killed the youngest son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, a Libyan government spokesman has said.
Saif al-Arab Gaddafi, 29, was killed along with three of Muammar Gaddafi's grandsons, according to reports.
The Libyan leader was in the building at the time of the strike, but was unharmed. Several of Gaddafi's friends and relatives were wounded.
Libyan government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said: "This was a direct operation to assassinate the leader of this country."
"The attack resulted in the martyrdom of brother Saif al-Arab Gaddafi and three of the leader's grandchildren," he said.
"The leader with his wife was there in the house with other friends and relatives. The leader himself is in good health – he wasn't harmed. [Muammar Gaddafi's] wife is also in good health."
Nato forces are permitted, under United Nations resolution 1973, passed in March, to use 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians from pro-Gaddafi forces.
Ibrahim added: "We think now it is clear to everyone that what is happening in Libya has nothing to do with the protection of civilians.
"This is not permitted by international law. Nato does not care to test our promises, the west does not care to test our statements. Their only care is to rob us of our freedom."
The one-storey house in a residential neighbourhood in Tripoli reportedly suffered heavy damage.
Nato gave no immediate reaction. There was no independent confirmation of the incident.
Al-Jazeera are reporting rebels from Misurata have broken out and siezed the town of Ziltan, 30 miles down the road to Tripoli.
Map here:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=Misratah,+Libya&ie=UTF8&geocode=FTdU3gEditTcAA&split=0&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=6.881357,14.941406&hq=&hnear=Mi%C5%9Fr%C4%81tah,+Misratah,+Libya&ll=32.488914,14.444275&spn=1.255652,3.515625&z=9 (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=Misratah,+Libya&ie=UTF8&geocode=FTdU3gEditTcAA&split=0&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=6.881357,14.941406&hq=&hnear=Mi%C5%9Fr%C4%81tah,+Misratah,+Libya&ll=32.488914,14.444275&spn=1.255652,3.515625&z=9)
I've had enough of Gadhafi (again), so I'm now siding with the rebels once more for the fifth time. :swiss:
Quote from: Caliga on May 11, 2011, 06:20:11 PM
I've had enough of Gadhafi (again), so I'm now siding with the rebels once more for the fifth time. :swiss:
The last tape of him had some awesome art on the walls. Not Saddam D&D artwork, but kooky enough.
Libyan civil war still going strong....
Quote
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/20/libya.war/index.html?
NATO destroys 8 Libyan warships
(CNN) -- NATO jets pounded Libyan ports overnight, destroying eight of Moammar Gadhafi's warships, an alliance spokesman said Friday.
NATO targeted the ships in Tripoli, Al-Khums and Sirte after it was apparent that Gadhafi's forces were increasingly using naval vessels to launch attacks on civilians, said Mike Bracken, NATO's military spokesman. He said Gadhafi was indiscriminately mining waters in Misrata and hampering the flow of humanitarian aid.
"He was using maritime forces to lay mines. These were legal targets," Bracken said at a briefing in Brussels, Belgium.
Bracken did not say whether crew members were aboard when the ships were hit.
Bracken said the NATO campaign was progressing and that Gadhafi's combat power had been severely curtailed.
Battle in Libya rages on
Libya troops using rape as a weapon?
Libya's al-Obeidy: 'My soul is liberated'
RELATED TOPICS
* Libya
* NATO
* War and Conflict
But the Libyan leader's forces continued their heavy shelling of Dehiba, on the Tunisian border, where thousands of refugees have amassed in recent weeks. The border crossing, through which humanitarian aid is often trucked in, was closed Friday.
Earlier in the week, rebel forces in the Nafusa Mountains of western Libya were under such heavy attack that they issued a call for help, the National Transitional Council in Benghazi said.
They were faring better along southern borders, according to a report by the International Medical Corps, which has teams in various locations in Libya and Tunisia. The report said rebels gained control of the border crossings between Libya and Sudan, and Libya and Chad, and regained control of Kufra in the southeast.
The global medical organization said rebel control along the Chad border was significant because of material supplies that flow through there to Gadhafi's forces.
"While control of the entire border will be difficult, the rebels are reported to have a large force in the region," it said. "The Niger and Morocco border crossings remain under Gadhafi control."
The International Medical Corps also reported constant shelling by pro-Gadhafi forces in Zintan, where at least one person was killed and six others were brought to hospital. The group also reported heavy fighting in the besieged city of Yefren, where the group said the situation was deteriorating with food and medical supplies in short supply.
In another development, the family of South African freelance photojournalist Anton Hammerl, who has been missing in Libya since April, said late Thursday they now believe he was killed by Libyan government forces.
The statement was posted on the "Free photographer Anton Hammerl" Facebook page and follows interviews given in The New York Times, Global Post and The Atlantic by two journalists who say they were with him at the time he was shot.
"On 5 April 2011, Anton was shot by Gaddafi's forces in an extremely remote location in the Libyan desert. According to eyewitnesses, his injuries were such that he could not have survived without medical attention," according to the Facebook statement.
Hammerl was last reportedly seen in a remote region of the Libyan desert. He was reportedly captured by Gadhafi's forces near the town of al-Brega, a key oil town in eastern Libya, that has been the site of intense fighting.
Did we do that? Who is 'NATO' in this case?
Quote from: KRonn on May 20, 2011, 10:20:39 AM
"While control of the entire border will be difficult, the rebels are reported to have a large force in the region," it said. "The Niger and Morocco border crossings remain under Gadhafi control."
Meh how hard could it be to patrol the Morocco-Libyan border?
I'm surprised that NATO didn't sink their navy before this.
I'm surprised that NATO is still hiding between the 'civilian' fig leaf.
Did we at least use something cool? Like ICBM launched ASMs or something?
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2011, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: KRonn on May 20, 2011, 10:20:39 AM
"While control of the entire border will be difficult, the rebels are reported to have a large force in the region," it said. "The Niger and Morocco border crossings remain under Gadhafi control."
Meh how hard could it be to patrol the Morocco-Libyan border?
Heh, since the two nations don't share a border! Obviously has to be a typo.
Maybe Morocco used the distraction to do some annexations in the region. :unsure:
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out--especially to Berkut--that this is exactly the type of clusterfuck that made intervention a terrible idea. This is the one of the worst scenarios that could have developed: a stalemate where you have active violence, no effective government in the country, and international business severely disrupted (which for a small country like Libya is crucial).
Quote from: KRonn on May 20, 2011, 10:43:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2011, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: KRonn on May 20, 2011, 10:20:39 AM
"While control of the entire border will be difficult, the rebels are reported to have a large force in the region," it said. "The Niger and Morocco border crossings remain under Gadhafi control."
Meh how hard could it be to patrol the Morocco-Libyan border?
Heh, since the two nations don't share a border! Obviously has to be a typo.
? Typo? Remember, this is Ghaddafi/Kaddafi/Qusaffi etc. we are talking about, typos are a Zionist plot.
Quote from: DGuller on May 20, 2011, 10:47:44 AM
Maybe Morocco used the distraction to do some annexations in the region. :unsure:
Hmm, something does appear to be a bit off about the 2011 map of the region, but I just can't put my finger on it... :unsure:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv66%2FEricDerKonig%2Fn_africa_mid_east_pol_95.jpg&hash=d6a6c90e05b07458d8bfe6ffe9cf61878f5e0186)
Latest battle report...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libyafeb17.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Flibya-map-dove-may-20.png&hash=dbeada7b2e1e6411e00edca1740f850fc3b034f7)
Btw, it appears that it was the RAF that took out the ships in Tripoli and Al-Khums, while the French hit Surt...
breakfast meals are in shortage? what the hell?
I was going to make a joke about food insecurity, but I think I will pass for now.
I agree that we should just drop the bullshit figleaf about protecting civilians. If we are going to whack on Qadaffi's forces, lets just do it and quit pretending we are doing anything else.
Pretending otherwise just ties our hands, since it means we have to only whack stuff we can pretend has some connection to "attacking civilians". Lets just state outright that we are supporting the rebels and their removal of the current government and be done with it.
The Atlantic has a great article about the ME revolutions this month. Thanks a bunch Yi for the sub - I have really enjoyed it.
Quote from: HVC on May 20, 2011, 12:07:12 PM
breakfast meals are in shortage? what the hell?
Cinnamon Toast Crunch reserves are critically low. :(
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2011, 01:21:01 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 20, 2011, 12:07:12 PM
breakfast meals are in shortage? what the hell?
Cinnamon Toast Crunch reserves are critically low. :(
Can't they just suck it up & have some of last night's leftover pizza as ersatz breakfast, like I did the other day?? :rolleyes:
A Western tank battalion would roll up Gaddafi's forces in hours. It's time for the whole Gaddafi clan to go, they'll be nuttier than squirrel shit if they manage to hang onto power. :hmm:
Sending American boys to do what African boys are doing ineptly for themselves? :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2011, 10:55:22 AM
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out--especially to Berkut--that this is exactly the type of clusterfuck that made intervention a terrible idea. This is the one of the worst scenarios that could have developed: a stalemate where you have active violence, no effective government in the country, and international business severely disrupted (which for a small country like Libya is crucial).
Yeah, I had a feeling it would turn out like this.
don't use the 'murricans, send an egyptian armor division in Monty's footsteps, the foreign legion from chad and the tunisian army to tripoli once the fighting is done.
Come on, we all know this is what we want to see down in the Libyan dessert...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg641.imageshack.us%2Fimg641%2F3846%2Fpzgr.jpg&hash=5a66587d2a66debcbcbc5b084e43524335009b0a)
German Panzergrenadiers...
Only if Italians and Brits go first.
Quote from: Syt on May 21, 2011, 09:37:09 AM
Only if Italians and Brits go first.
Italians first, you krauts never learn... :(
update:
QuoteNATO airstrikes hit Tripoli, heaviest bombing yet
By DIAA HADID and MICHELLE FAUL, Associated Press
TRIPOLI, Libya – NATO warplanes bombarded targets in Tripoli with more than 20 airstrikes early Tuesday, striking around Moammar Gadhafi's residential compound in what appeared to be the heaviest night of bombing of the Libyan capital since the Western alliance launched its air campaign against his forces.
The rapid string of strikes, all within less than half an hour, set off thunderous booms that rattled windows, sent heavy, acrid-smelling plumes of smoke over the city, including from an area close to Gadhafi's sprawling Bab al-Aziziya compound.
Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said at least three people were killed and dozens wounded in NATO strikes that targeted what he described as buildings used by volunteer units of the Libyan army.
NATO said in a statement that a number of the strikes hit a vehicle storage facility adjacent to Bab al-Aziziya that has been used in supplying regime forces "conducting attacks on civilians." It was not immediately clear if the facility was the only target hit in the barrage. Bab al-Aziziya, which includes a number of military facilities, has been pounded repeatedly by NATO strikes.
The military aircraft whooshed low over the city during the night, the strikes coming in series of three loud booms, a pause of minutes punctuated by the hissing sound of low-flying jets, then more shaking, shuddering strikes, shaking windows miles away from Bab al-Aziziya. The sound of other more distant explosions could also be heard.
Pro-Gadhafi loyalists beeped their car horns and fired guns, shouting their support for the Libyan leader. Armed men sprayed the night sky with gunfire in response. Men screamed and shouted outside the hotel where journalists were staying, declaring their loyalty to Gadhafi.
Observers described the bombing as the heaviest attack on the Libyan capital since NATO began its air campaign on March 19 after the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution to protect civilians after Gadhafi responded to the public uprising against his rule by unleashing his military and his militias.
In one room of the Tripoli Central Hospital, the bodies of three mangled men in their twenties lay on stretchers, their clothing ripped and their faces partially blown away and dusty. A nurse, Ahmad Shara, told reporters taken on a government-escorted visit to the facility soon after the strikes that the men were standing outside their homes when they were killed, presumably by shrapnel.
One man who identified himself as a relative walked into the room where the bodies lay. He halted at their sight, turned around and loudly slapped his hands on a wall as he cried out in shock.
Around 10 other men and women lay on stretchers. They appeared moderately to lightly wounded.
"We thought it was the day of judgment," said Fathallah Salem, a 45-year-old contractor who rushed his 75-year-old mother to the hospital after she suffered shock. The wide-eyed man described how his home trembled, his mother fainted and how the younger of his seven children cried as they heard the rolling explosions.
"You were in the hotel and you were terrified by the shaking — imagine what it was like for the people who live in slums!" Salem said, as he interrupted a government spokesman to speak to a crowd of foreign reporters at the hospital.
"Honestly, we used to have problems (with the regime)," he said in Arabic. "But today we are all Moammar Gadhafi."
NATO, which said in its statement that it took care to "minimize the risk of collateral damage to the fullest extent possible," has been escalating and widening the scope of its strikes over the past weeks, hiking the pressure on Gadhafi, while the alliance's members have built closer ties with the rebel movement that has control of the eastern half of Libya. On Monday, the highest-ranking U.S. diplomat in the Middle East, Jeffrey Feltman, was in the de facto rebel capital of Benghazi in a show of support.
Despite NATO bombing runs, the rebels have not been able to break Gadhafi's grip on the west of the country, including the capital Tripoli.
In a significant new deployment of firepower, France and Britain are bringing attack helicopters to use in the strikes in Libya as soon as possible, French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet said Monday.
The use of attack helicopters would appear to mark a new strategy for NATO, which has relied on strikes by fighter planes and seen that result in a stalemate on the ground as Gadhafi forces adapted, often turning to urban fighting to make such strikes more difficult.
Nimble, low-flying helicopters have much more leeway to pick targets with precision than high-flying jets. But they also are much more vulnerable to ground fire. The alliance has had no military deaths since it first started enforcing a no-fly zone on March 31.
Longuet said the helicopters would be used to target military equipment such as Libyan tanker and ammunition trucks in crowded urban areas while causing fewer civilian casualties. Longuet said France would essentially use Gazelle helicopters, which have been around for some 40 years, but can also use the Tigre, a modern helicopter gunship.
The U.S. State Department statement said the visit by Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, was "another signal of the U.S.'s support" for the rebels' National Transitional Council, which it called "a legitimate and credible interlocutor for the Libyan people."
Several countries, including France and Italy, have recognized the NTC, while the United States, Britain and others have established a diplomatic presence in Benghazi.
Feltman plans to meet with council head Mustafa Abdul-Jalil and others before his scheduled departure on Tuesday. He declined to answer questions Monday by a reporter from The Associated Press.
The visit follows the opening of a European Union office on Sunday by that body's top diplomat, Catherine Ashton, who said she looked forward to a better Libya "where Gadhafi will not be in the picture."
Rebel leaders welcome the diplomatic contact, but say only better weapons will help them defeat Gadhafi.
"It is just not enough to recognize (us) and visit the liberated areas," spokesman Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga told AP. "We have tried very hard to explain to them that we need the arms, we need funding, to be able to bring this to a successful conclusion at the earliest possible time and with the fewest humanitarian costs possible."
Rebels now control the populated coastal strip in the country's east and the western port city of Misrata, which Gadhafi's forces have besieged for months. They also control pockets in Libya's western Nafusa mountain range.
Ghoga warned that residents of the Nafusa mountains face a "major humanitarian disaster" because government troops have been cutting supply lines to communities. Rebels say about 225,000 people live in the area.
Col. Jumaa Ibrahim, who defected from Gadhafi's forces and is now a member of the mountain military council, said two villages, Galaa and Yefren, are facing critical shortages. "There is no water, money or food. They are bombed everyday with launchers, tanks and whatever they can," Ibrahim said.
Villagers raise goats and sheep and grow apricots and almonds on the plain near their town, he said. Many fear Gadhafi's troops have destroyed their orchards and stolen or killed their animals.
Gadhafi's forces fired rockets at the mountain town of Zintan on Monday, damaging houses and the tanker trucks residents use to bring in water, resident Hamid Embayah told the AP via Skype. No one was injured.
Faul reported from Benghazi, Libya. Associated Press Writer Ben Hubbard in Cairo and Bouazza Ben Bouazza in Tunisia contributed reporting.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Frids%2F20110523%2Fi%2Fra4129698746.jpg&hash=3b1e27dec09720b6c771b409aa56ced464390867)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Frids%2F20110523%2Fi%2Fr2682977638.jpg&hash=628bf740ab8aec8ebe762897c662462606ff866e)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fap%2F20110523%2Fcapt.5c32ae9b46fc4251ad2f9e40d80a25c8-5c32ae9b46fc4251ad2f9e40d80a25c8-0.jpg&hash=941cad6cdd7cb3649309bc5067dd1cbd005d4d6e)
QuoteA plastic skeleton and used ammunition is seen in a checkpoint as rebel fighters drive towards the front line with Moammar Gadhafi forces, 25 km west from Misrata, Libya, Monday, May 23, 2011. On the sign hanging from the skeleton it reads 'Destiny of Traitors'.(AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd)
3000 Légionnaires and this shit would be over in a month. What's with the pussyfooting.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 23, 2011, 11:22:14 PM
3000 Légionnaires and this shit would be over in a month. What's with the pussyfooting.
I agree. I think intervention was a terrible idea, but the worst idea of all is to intervene so lightly you promote a stalemate. Go in, or don't go in.
I guess the leaders are afraid of putting in ground troops because of casualties and also it will make it harder to just disappear from the giant mess that will be left when Quadafi goes.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 23, 2011, 11:22:14 PM
3000 Légionnaires and this shit would be over in a month. What's with the pussyfooting.
No kidding. I think it's high time to start putting some curbstompers on the ground in this shit.
We should make the Italians do it. :)
Quote from: Caliga on May 24, 2011, 06:52:39 AM
We should make the Italians do it. :)
If we do, Libya will end up in Naples by the end of the year.
I don't think so. Italy isn't lead by Il Duce anymore. Now they have Silvio. He can shoot awesomeness out of his eyes like frikkin laser beams. :cool:
:swiss:
QuoteLibyan Rebel Council to Open Office in Washington
VOA News May 24, 2011
A top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East says the Libyan rebel's Transitional National Council has accepted an invitation from U.S. President Barack Obama to open a representative office in Washington
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman said Tuesday in the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi that the United States is no longer speaking with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. He said the U.S. considered the opposition council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people, stopping short of granting formal recognition to the TNC.
The high-ranking U.S. diplomat is on a three-day visit to Libya and is the most senior U.S. official to visit the country since the uprising against Gadhafi began in February.
The diplomatic invitation comes as NATO warplanes rocked the Libyan capital, Tripoli, with some of its heaviest airstrikes yet.
Witnesses heard at least 15 explosions in the city as NATO warplanes roared overhead Tuesday. A Libyan government spokesman says the latest strikes killed at least three people and wounded dozens more.
On Monday, Britain and France announced that they plan to deploy attack helicopters to join the NATO air campaign. French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe Monday said the deployment falls within the United Nations mandate to protect Libyan civilians. NATO says use of the helicopters will allow more precise targeting of Gadhafi's military.
It is a bit frustrating to see this in a stalemate, especially with NATO involved. But I think during this time Gadaffi's forces aren't making headway, while the Rebel forces are getting better trained and equipped. Then they'll be able to take the fight to Gadaffi's forces, and hopefully end this. However, as in all the Arab nations that have had uprisings, I think it's just as much a concern what the next group to come to power will be.
Yeah, even though it's mostly stalemated now, the longer this goes on the less of a chance Gadhafi has of actually winning. The best I can see him doing now is maintaining control over Tripolitania and the south, but I think Cyrenaica is pemanently lost to him now, unless someone decides to intervene on his side and help out... a prospect that has no chance of actually happening.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 23, 2011, 11:22:14 PM
3000 Légionnaires and this shit would be over in a month. What's with the pussyfooting.
You turn me on with that kind of talk.
Also, 2 weeks tops.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2011, 10:55:22 AM
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out--especially to Berkut--that this is exactly the type of clusterfuck that made intervention a terrible idea. This is the one of the worst scenarios that could have developed: a stalemate where you have active violence, no effective government in the country, and international business severely disrupted (which for a small country like Libya is crucial).
I disagree completely. This is not even close to "one of the worst scenarios" - people fighting to get out from under a dictator makes the "worst scenario" pretty simple. It is when the dictator wins and they get to look forward to another 50 years of dictatorship since it means the dictator just become an order of magnitude stronger.
Worst case scenario? North Korea is the "worst case scenario" that can result from intervention, or not intervening and letting the dictator win - although in that case at least we managed to keep South Korea from that same fate, so the "worst case" only applied to half the country instead of the whole.
You are suffering from the fallacy of seeing a situation at the worst moment (or just a bad moment, it could get even worse before it gets better), and assuming this is the end state. It is only the end state if you convince yourself that it cannot be better, and simply give up. This is the error made by those who said the US should bail from Iraq when the insurgency was at its worst, because it was the "worst case" outcome.
And even if the entire thing eventually fails, and the worst case scenario still does come about, I won't regret supporting people trying to overthrow a dictator. Even with all their Islamic bonkers warts.
What if the French in the American revolutionary War had said "Oh man, the Americans are in a stalemate! This is the worst case scenario, lets abandon them! We never should have helped to begin with!". Of course, that analogy falls down only to the extent that British rule was vastly more benevolent that Qaddafi's dictatorship.
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 09:21:51 AM
Of course, that analogy falls down only to the extent that British rule was vastly more benevolent that Qaddafi's dictatorship.
:yes:
We were wrong to rebel actually. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on May 24, 2011, 09:24:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 09:21:51 AM
Of course, that analogy falls down only to the extent that British rule was vastly more benevolent that Qaddafi's dictatorship.
:yes:
We were wrong to rebel actually. :blush:
Rule under a bunch of Josq's? Hell. On. Earth.
Quote from: Caliga on May 24, 2011, 09:24:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 09:21:51 AM
Of course, that analogy falls down only to the extent that British rule was vastly more benevolent that Qaddafi's dictatorship.
:yes:
We were wrong to rebel actually. :blush:
Well, no, that is not really the correct conclusion at all.
We were perfectly right to rebel - in fact, the lack of any overt oppression makes our rebellion that much more principled! Or something...
We were wrong to rebel because doing so means I can't legitimately complain about wanting to get rid of the monarchy. Also, I would have gotten those free days off when Harry and Kate got married. :(
And we would've had socialized medicine by now. :(
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
And we would've had socialized medicine by now. :(
Oh, I forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me. :hug:
Nobody is going to take away my right to suffer with no help GODDAMNIT. :showoff:
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 09:21:51 AM
What if the French in the American revolutionary War had said "Oh man, the Americans are in a stalemate! This is the worst case scenario, lets abandon them! We never should have helped to begin with!". Of course, that analogy falls down only to the extent that British rule was vastly more benevolent that Qaddafi's dictatorship.
Also because the French bankrupted themselves by intervening, leading to all sorts of trouble for themselves and the rest of Europe ... ;)
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 09:21:51 AM
I disagree completely. This is not even close to "one of the worst scenarios" - people fighting to get out from under a dictator makes the "worst scenario" pretty simple. It is when the dictator wins and they get to look forward to another 50 years of dictatorship since it means the dictator just become an order of magnitude stronger.
Worst case scenario? North Korea is the "worst case scenario" that can result from intervention, or not intervening and letting the dictator win - although in that case at least we managed to keep South Korea from that same fate, so the "worst case" only applied to half the country instead of the whole.
You are suffering from the fallacy of seeing a situation at the worst moment (or just a bad moment, it could get even worse before it gets better), and assuming this is the end state. It is only the end state if you convince yourself that it cannot be better, and simply give up. This is the error made by those who said the US should bail from Iraq when the insurgency was at its worst, because it was the "worst case" outcome.
And even if the entire thing eventually fails, and the worst case scenario still does come about, I won't regret supporting people trying to overthrow a dictator. Even with all their Islamic bonkers warts.
What if the French in the American revolutionary War had said "Oh man, the Americans are in a stalemate! This is the worst case scenario, lets abandon them! We never should have helped to begin with!". Of course, that analogy falls down only to the extent that British rule was vastly more benevolent that Qaddafi's dictatorship.
According to Wikipedia, Libya had a nominal GDP of just over $11k. Granted, there was a lot of income inequality, but that would be right at the top of Latin America (if not the top) and ahead of parts of Eastern Europe. The country isn't analogous to Egypt, which was under $2k. This was a decent middle country. Now it is relying on aid shipments, and there is a breakdown in law and order.Whether or not this will have a long term happy ending, it is a short term catastrophe, and you are contemplating "food security" jokes.
This isn't the American Revolution. Aside from why France was intervening (I suspect they cared more about crippling the British Empire than whether the colonies descended into chaos), the colonies were quite well organized, had a government tradition on which to rely once the British were removed, and they had many leaders available. The Libyans have none of those things. What odds would you put on Libya being a stable democracy in 5-10 years? I'd put the number quite low.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 23, 2011, 11:22:14 PM
3000 Légionnaires and this shit would be over in a month. What's with the pussyfooting.
I am intrigued by your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
If there is one lesson to be learned from the last decade, it's that tradition of governance is extremely important. Without good governance, removing the tyrants running the country is ultimately futile.
Of course, it's often catch-22, because tyrants with survival instinct make sure that there is no tradition of governance left that doesn't hinge on them, but armed intervention unfortunately does not break that vicious circle.
About the only good policy of the German government in the last few months was not to get involved with this shit. We should have voted in favor at the UN though.
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 10:23:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 09:21:51 AM
What if the French in the American revolutionary War had said "Oh man, the Americans are in a stalemate! This is the worst case scenario, lets abandon them! We never should have helped to begin with!". Of course, that analogy falls down only to the extent that British rule was vastly more benevolent that Qaddafi's dictatorship.
Also because the French bankrupted themselves by intervening, leading to all sorts of trouble for themselves and the rest of Europe ... ;)
True. They did kind of run into some problems of their own a little bit later, IIRC. Some kind of trouble in Paris or something? I forget how it all worked out for the French monarchy...
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2011, 10:35:43 AM
If there is one lesson to be learned from the last decade, it's that tradition of governance is extremely important. Without good governance, removing the tyrants running the country is ultimately futile.
Of course, it's often catch-22, because tyrants with survival instinct make sure that there is no tradition of governance left that doesn't hinge on them, but armed intervention unfortunately does not break that vicious circle.
Does rebellion?
I am operating under the presumption that any form of democracy, even unstable, fucked up democracy, is much more likely to end up with a good outcome in the long run than continued dictatorship under a tyrant who is clearly unwilling to give up power peacefully.
Obviously the ideal solution is convincing the tyrant to transition away from dictatorship peacefully and in a controlled manner, but at some point, it becomes clear that simply is not going to happen - I think that point has been reached in many cases in the Middle East - and some of the responsibility for that reality is carried by the West for propping up these regimes. We cannot claim to be disinterested observers now, IMO.
So the question then becomes what we should do when people do in fact rebel. Do we sit back and watch them get crushed, or do we help?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 24, 2011, 10:26:49 AM
According to Wikipedia, Libya had a nominal GDP of just over $11k. Granted, there was a lot of income inequality, but that would be right at the top of Latin America (if not the top) and ahead of parts of Eastern Europe. The country isn't analogous to Egypt, which was under $2k. This was a decent middle country. Now it is relying on aid shipments, and there is a breakdown in law and order.Whether or not this will have a long term happy ending, it is a short term catastrophe, and you are contemplating "food security" jokes.
I think that is MY point - that you should not make long term decisions (as in we should get out and stop helping) based on short term realities.
Quote
This isn't the American Revolution.
True enough.
Quote
Aside from why France was intervening (I suspect they cared more about crippling the British Empire than whether the colonies descended into chaos),
Of course - but that doesn't really matter in respect to my point about France bailing because at some particular point the fight was not going as well as one might hope. There will almost always be a point where things are not going as well as one might hope. It if foolish to make decisions about the long term viability based on the instant reality of the moment. Like deciding that WW2 was not winnable 5 minutes after Pearl Harbor, because that outcome was so terribly bad.
Quote
the colonies were quite well organized, had a government tradition on which to rely once the British were removed, and they had many leaders available. The Libyans have none of those things. What odds would you put on Libya being a stable democracy in 5-10 years? I'd put the number quite low.
I think whatever the number is, it is quite a bit higher than if we let Qaddafi win. And I don't think the bar for success is "stable democracy in 5 years" anyway. The question is not "Are we certain that if we help the rebels will Libya will be a stable democracy in 5 years (or 10)". The question is "Should we support people trying to overthrow a dictactor, or should we ignore them?"
I think you are creating a false dilemna - saying that unless we can be assured of some outcome, we should not take action. If you use that criteria, then you will never take any action....ever. Because there are no sure outcomes.
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 11:26:05 AM
Does rebellion?
Actually, I wonder if there are any examples of totalitarian tyrants being replaced by surviving democracy through armed rebellion. It's very much possible that I'm forgetting some examples, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. It seems like democracy usually comes about when absolute rulers gradually relax their grip after more moderate pressure.
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 11:31:47 AM
I think whatever the number is, it is quite a bit higher than if we let Qaddafi win. And I don't think the bar for success is "stable democracy in 5 years" anyway. The question is not "Are we certain that if we help the rebels will Libya will be a stable democracy in 5 years (or 10)". The question is "Should we support people trying to overthrow a dictactor, or should we ignore them?"
I think you are creating a false dilemna - saying that unless we can be assured of some outcome, we should not take action. If you use that criteria, then you will never take any action....ever. Because there are no sure outcomes.
The starting point of any decision needs to be that intervention could (and in this case has) resulted in a stalemate where millions have had their economic lives significantly disrupted, infrastructure has been destroyed, thousands of rapes and murders have taken place, tenuous routes for international aid are now needed to meet food and medical requirements, education has been disrupted, etc.
Is the level of intervention we are providing likely to produce an outcome that helps peoples lives to such an extent that the short term troubles are worth it? You can't just put a team democracy t-shirt on and say any price that by some small percent increases the chance of democracy is worth it.
Afghanistan is a great example. It was different in that we were fighting the Cold War, but in hindsight the war we helped them fight against the Soviets was a disaster. They may have won, but it actually eroded the cause of democracy and freedom.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 24, 2011, 11:51:46 AM
Afghanistan is a great example. It was different in that we were fighting the Cold War, but in hindsight the war we helped them fight against the Soviets was a disaster. They may have won, but it actually eroded the cause of democracy and freedom.
How's that? I think the mujahideen still would have won without our support. It might have taken longer for them, using Chinese weapons instead of U.S. weapons, but I think they would have won either way.
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
How's that? I think the mujahideen still would have won without our support. It might have taken longer for them, using Chinese weapons instead of U.S. weapons, but I think they would have won either way.
Okay.
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 10:23:27 AM
Also because the French bankrupted themselves by intervening, leading to all sorts of trouble for themselves and the rest of Europe ... ;)
True. What made it worse was that France had never been bankrupt before and Europe had never had trouble before. No intervention was worth causinng trouble.
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2011, 12:09:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 10:23:27 AM
Also because the French bankrupted themselves by intervening, leading to all sorts of trouble for themselves and the rest of Europe ... ;)
True. What made it worse was that France had never been bankrupt before and Europe had never had trouble before. No intervention was worth causinng trouble.
Excluding a middle much? :lol:
Obviously, the French intervention in America was a well-thought-out plan, intended to benefit the poor downtrodden oppressed Americans, that ended well for France. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 12:26:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2011, 12:09:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 10:23:27 AM
Also because the French bankrupted themselves by intervening, leading to all sorts of trouble for themselves and the rest of Europe ... ;)
True. What made it worse was that France had never been bankrupt before and Europe had never had trouble before. No intervention was worth causinng trouble.
Excluding a middle much? :lol:
Obviously, the French intervention in America was a well-thought-out plan, intended to benefit the poor downtrodden oppressed Americans, that ended well for France. :hmm:
It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 12:29:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 12:26:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2011, 12:09:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 10:23:27 AM
Also because the French bankrupted themselves by intervening, leading to all sorts of trouble for themselves and the rest of Europe ... ;)
True. What made it worse was that France had never been bankrupt before and Europe had never had trouble before. No intervention was worth causinng trouble.
Excluding a middle much? :lol:
Obviously, the French intervention in America was a well-thought-out plan, intended to benefit the poor downtrodden oppressed Americans, that ended well for France. :hmm:
It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.
:bleeding: Their German is terrible.
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 12:29:02 PM
It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.
Naw - they would would be part of the invincible British Empire, and all be speaking English.
A distinct improvement. :D
Quote from: alfred russel on May 24, 2011, 11:51:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 11:31:47 AM
I think whatever the number is, it is quite a bit higher than if we let Qaddafi win. And I don't think the bar for success is "stable democracy in 5 years" anyway. The question is not "Are we certain that if we help the rebels will Libya will be a stable democracy in 5 years (or 10)". The question is "Should we support people trying to overthrow a dictactor, or should we ignore them?"
I think you are creating a false dilemna - saying that unless we can be assured of some outcome, we should not take action. If you use that criteria, then you will never take any action....ever. Because there are no sure outcomes.
The starting point of any decision needs to be that intervention could (and in this case has) resulted in a stalemate where millions have had their economic lives significantly disrupted, infrastructure has been destroyed, thousands of rapes and murders have taken place, tenuous routes for international aid are now needed to meet food and medical requirements, education has been disrupted, etc.
Is the level of intervention we are providing likely to produce an outcome that helps peoples lives to such an extent that the short term troubles are worth it? You can't just put a team democracy t-shirt on and say any price that by some small percent increases the chance of democracy is worth it.
Afghanistan is a great example. It was different in that we were fighting the Cold War, but in hindsight the war we helped them fight against the Soviets was a disaster. They may have won, but it actually eroded the cause of democracy and freedom.
Aghanistant is a great example.
The US support did not create the Mujahadeen, nor did it cause the Soviets to invade. That was a mess whether we helped them out or not.
This is the basic error you are making - you think that Western support is what is creating the "short term troubles". I think that is grossly wrong - they are going to have those short term troubles whether we help or not.
Once the level of tyranny became high enough (or lasted long enough) that people got enough sick of it that they were willing to endure those "short term troubles" in order to get the *chance* for long term freedom from that tyranny, chaos was the result.
There is no option that does not include the "short term troubles". The argument that we should sit back and let dictators butcher people and crush any chance for progress because it is better for the people who are actually willing to fight for the chance to overthrow them is morally bankrupt.
A bunch of people in Libya decided that they would rather fight and take on all the risk and pain that involves than continue to live under a tyrant. Your argument is basically that we should not support them because...well, because it will make it harder for Qaddafi to win, and the people in question would be better off just getting crushed, because the pain would be over quicker.
I think there are some good arguments to stay the fuck out. From moral argument dealing with our role as interventionists, to practical arguments about whether our intervention actually helps given how the West is viewed, to even pragmatic arguments about whether or not it is our problem or not, or whether we should expend our resources on someone elses freedom.
But the argument that we should not help because the people desperately trying to overthrow a dictator
would be better off under that dictator as opposed to the pain of rebellion, and what is more, that WE are the best judges of whether or not they should be willing to endure that pain, is simply reprehensible.
"Gosh, we would love to help you in your fight for freedom, but you know, we kind of looked at the situation and decided that you guys really shouldn't be fighting to begin with, and are simply better off under the tyrant! What are you whining about?"
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 12:31:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 12:29:02 PM
It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.
Naw - they would would be part of the invincible British Empire, and all be speaking English.
A distinct improvement. :D
No way, the Brits were already on the decline. French support for the US just made it so we were not dragged down into mediocrity with them, like Canada.
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 12:39:20 PMNo way, the Brits were already on the decline. French support for the US just made it so we were not dragged down into mediocrity with them, like Canada.
Yeah good thing. You couldn't compete with us on that score; Canada may very well be #1 when it comes to mediocrity.
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 12:38:02 PM
Aghanistant is a great example.
The US support did not create the Mujahadeen, nor did it cause the Soviets to invade. That was a mess whether we helped them out or not.
This is the basic error you are making - you think that Western support is what is creating the "short term troubles". I think that is grossly wrong - they are going to have those short term troubles whether we help or not.
Once the level of tyranny became high enough (or lasted long enough) that people got enough sick of it that they were willing to endure those "short term troubles" in order to get the *chance* for long term freedom from that tyranny, chaos was the result.
There is no option that does not include the "short term troubles". The argument that we should sit back and let dictators butcher people and crush any chance for progress because it is better for the people who are actually willing to fight for the chance to overthrow them is morally bankrupt.
A bunch of people in Libya decided that they would rather fight and take on all the risk and pain that involves than continue to live under a tyrant. Your argument is basically that we should not support them because...well, because it will make it harder for Qaddafi to win, and the people in question would be better off just getting crushed, because the pain would be over quicker.
I think there are some good arguments to stay the fuck out. From moral argument dealing with our role as interventionists, to practical arguments about whether our intervention actually helps given how the West is viewed, to even pragmatic arguments about whether or not it is our problem or not, or whether we should expend our resources on someone elses freedom.
But the argument that we should not help because the people desperately trying to overthrow a dictator would be better off under that dictator as opposed to the pain of rebellion, and what is more, that WE are the best judges of whether or not they should be willing to endure that pain, is simply reprehensible.
"Gosh, we would love to help you in your fight for freedom, but you know, we kind of looked at the situation and decided that you guys really shouldn't be fighting to begin with, and are simply better off under the tyrant! What are you whining about?"
I'll blame us for the current problems because we have prevented one side from prosecuting the war in a way that will lead to it winning, while not committing to help the other side win. We set up the stalemate, and it wasn't hard to see this happening at the start.
I don't agree with "A bunch of people in Libya decided that they would rather fight and take on all the risk and pain that involves than continue to live under a tyrant" as binding the country to a course of action. Some people have done so—some people presumably would rather live in peace. Others still are backing Quaddafi. And I definitely disagree that we should assume "a bunch of people in Libya" overthrowing Quaddafi are better than Libya under Quaddafi.
I don't think it is a radical position that we shouldn't start dropping bombs and killing people unless we are quite certain that doing so is going to lead to a good outcome.
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 12:39:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 12:31:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 12:29:02 PM
It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.
Naw - they would would be part of the invincible British Empire, and all be speaking English.
A distinct improvement. :D
No way, the Brits were already on the decline. French support for the US just made it so we were not dragged down into mediocrity with them, like Canada.
:huh:
The Brits were on the way up, hitting their apogee in the late 19th century. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2011, 12:58:20 PM
The Brits were on the way up, hitting their apogee in the late 19th century. :huh:
I think the experience of losing in the Revolution had them rethink their policy, at least with regards to their colonists, and helped them get back on the right track.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 24, 2011, 12:58:05 PM
I don't think it is a radical position that we shouldn't start dropping bombs and killing people unless we are quite certain that doing so is going to lead to a good outcome.
I disagree. I think it is very much a radical position. I think fighting tyranny is a worthy endeavor even if we are not certain at all that we will win. I think it is a radical position to do nothing without certainty, since that position means we will never do anything, since the outcome is never certain, much less "quite certain". That metric would have resulted in the (excuse my Godwinism, but when is this a more perfect example?) triumph of totalitarianism.
The Brits and French would never have declared war on Germany using this measure. They certainly were not "quite certain" that they would win, or that the outcome would be "good". Indeed, the outcome for the French was defeat.
Your argument is perfectly suited to London, England circa September 1940. "Why in the hell did we ever support those Poles? We would all be better off just letting the Germans win than suffer this terrible war!"
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2011, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 12:39:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 12:31:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 12:29:02 PM
It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.
Naw - they would would be part of the invincible British Empire, and all be speaking English.
A distinct improvement. :D
No way, the Brits were already on the decline. French support for the US just made it so we were not dragged down into mediocrity with them, like Canada.
:huh:
The Brits were on the way up, hitting their apogee in the late 19th century. :huh:
The writing was on the wall!
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 01:04:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 24, 2011, 12:58:05 PM
I don't think it is a radical position that we shouldn't start dropping bombs and killing people unless we are quite certain that doing so is going to lead to a good outcome.
I disagree. I think it is very much a radical position. I think fighting tyranny is a worthy endeavor even if we are not certain at all that we will win. I think it is a radical position to do nothing without certainty, since that position means we will never do anything, since the outcome is never certain, much less "quite certain". That metric would have resulted in the (excuse my Godwinism, but when is this a more perfect example?) triumph of totalitarianism.
The Brits and French would never have declared war on Germany using this measure. They certainly were not "quite certain" that they would win, or that the outcome would be "good". Indeed, the outcome for the French was defeat.
Your argument is perfectly suited to London, England circa September 1940. "Why in the hell did we ever support those Poles? We would all be better off just letting the Germans win than suffer this terrible war!"
Certainty is the wrong word. Let me change that to the expected outcome. And since war is a significantly negative summed endeavor, the stakes and prospects for success must be very high to have a positive expected outcome.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 24, 2011, 01:15:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 01:04:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 24, 2011, 12:58:05 PM
I don't think it is a radical position that we shouldn't start dropping bombs and killing people unless we are quite certain that doing so is going to lead to a good outcome.
I disagree. I think it is very much a radical position. I think fighting tyranny is a worthy endeavor even if we are not certain at all that we will win. I think it is a radical position to do nothing without certainty, since that position means we will never do anything, since the outcome is never certain, much less "quite certain". That metric would have resulted in the (excuse my Godwinism, but when is this a more perfect example?) triumph of totalitarianism.
The Brits and French would never have declared war on Germany using this measure. They certainly were not "quite certain" that they would win, or that the outcome would be "good". Indeed, the outcome for the French was defeat.
Your argument is perfectly suited to London, England circa September 1940. "Why in the hell did we ever support those Poles? We would all be better off just letting the Germans win than suffer this terrible war!"
Certainty is the wrong word. Let me change that to the expected outcome. And since war is a significantly negative summed endeavor, the stakes and prospects for success must be very high to have a positive expected outcome.
But that is an argument to make with those who want to engage in war with Qaddafi to overthrow him. It is a good argument
before the war/rebellion starts. It doesn't apply to the decision about whether to support the rebels once the war starts.
The "expected outcome" is null. There is a hoped for outcome, and a feared outcome. The argument that the result at any particular moment is by definition the "expected outcome" or the feared outcome is a bit silly. We don't know what the outcome is of the decision to intervene yet. Quitting because we have not reached the optimal outcome already, a bare few months into the conflict?
Where would we be today if the US had quit after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor???
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2011, 01:00:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2011, 12:58:20 PM
The Brits were on the way up, hitting their apogee in the late 19th century. :huh:
I think the experience of losing in the Revolution had them rethink their policy, at least with regards to their colonists, and helped them get back on the right track.
Yeah.
They should have treated those Yanks like they treated the sepoys during the Indian Mutiny.
http://indiaexplored.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/sepoy_mutiny_execution.jpg
:menace:
Heh. Cynthia.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-21/world/libya.mckinney_1_moammar-gadhafi-economic-policies-mckinney
:face: The people that elected her insane ass to Congress should be ashamed of themselves. They probably aren't, though. :glare:
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2011, 01:00:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2011, 12:58:20 PM
The Brits were on the way up, hitting their apogee in the late 19th century. :huh:
I think the experience of losing in the Revolution had them rethink their policy, at least with regards to their colonists, and helped them get back on the right track.
Not really.
We had our own revolts in the 1830s, a mere 50 years later, and it was that (and the subsequent report of Lord Durham) which caused Britain to rethink their policy with the colonies.
Ironically the US Revolution probably retarded the development of self-government in the remaining colonists by the influx of loyalists.
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 01:28:17 PM
But that is an argument to make with those who want to engage in war with Qaddafi to overthrow him. It is a good argument before the war/rebellion starts. It doesn't apply to the decision about whether to support the rebels once the war starts.
The "expected outcome" is null. There is a hoped for outcome, and a feared outcome. The argument that the result at any particular moment is by definition the "expected outcome" or the feared outcome is a bit silly. We don't know what the outcome is of the decision to intervene yet. Quitting because we have not reached the optimal outcome already, a bare few months into the conflict?
Where would we be today if the US had quit after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor???
I'm a finance dork. You make investing decisions in an uncertain environment, but can come up with an expected value. For example, you launch a new kind of cookie. There is a 10% chance it will work, and you will make $10 million. There is a 30% chance it breaks even, and a 60% chance it fails and you lose $6 million. Your expected value of launching the cookie is to lose $2.6 million (.1 * 10 + .3 * 0 +.6 * - 6).
I'd expect that the state department would do some sort of similar analysis before jumping into Libya (using different variables than just dollars, of course).
You are arguing against a bit of a strawman by bringing up the idea of quitting (not to mention a certain law regarding WWII): as I've posted, now that we are in I'm in favor of escalation, even if I believed before and continue to believe this intervention is a mistake.
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2011, 01:49:05 PM
Not really.
We had our own revolts in the 1830s, a mere 50 years later, and it was that (and the subsequent report of Lord Durham) which caused Britain to rethink their policy with the colonies.
Ironically the US Revolution probably retarded the development of self-government in the remaining colonists by the influx of loyalists.
So Quebec is responsible for the glory of the British Empire eh?
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2011, 01:54:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2011, 01:49:05 PM
Not really.
We had our own revolts in the 1830s, a mere 50 years later, and it was that (and the subsequent report of Lord Durham) which caused Britain to rethink their policy with the colonies.
Ironically the US Revolution probably retarded the development of self-government in the remaining colonists by the influx of loyalists.
So Quebec is responsible for the glory of the British Empire eh?
to be fair, the revolts occured in the Maritimes and in Ontario too, albeit at a smaller scale.
Quote from: viper37 on May 24, 2011, 02:12:13 PM
to be fair, the revolts occured in the Maritimes and in Ontario too, albeit at a smaller scale.
Your modesty becomes you oh Hero of Britannia.
Quote from: viper37 on May 24, 2011, 02:12:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2011, 01:54:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2011, 01:49:05 PM
Not really.
We had our own revolts in the 1830s, a mere 50 years later, and it was that (and the subsequent report of Lord Durham) which caused Britain to rethink their policy with the colonies.
Ironically the US Revolution probably retarded the development of self-government in the remaining colonists by the influx of loyalists.
So Quebec is responsible for the glory of the British Empire eh?
to be fair, the revolts occured in the Maritimes and in Ontario too, albeit at a smaller scale.
Yup - Mr. Mackenzie led a historic ... tavern brawl. :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery%27s_Tavern
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 24, 2011, 01:36:52 PM
Heh. Cynthia.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-21/world/libya.mckinney_1_moammar-gadhafi-economic-policies-mckinney
I have changed my mind.
They should treat *her* like the brits treated the sepoys.
http://indiaexplored.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/sepoy_mutiny_execution.jpg
QuoteSeparately, McKinney appeared on state-run Press TV this week in Iran. She was reported to be in Tehran attending the International Conference on Global Alliance Against Terrorism for a Just Peace.
just....wow.
As somebody who is constantly wanting the US to reduce its international presence people like her and Chomsky are always embarrasing.
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2011, 02:33:11 PM
As s human being people like her and Chomsky are always embarrasing.
fyp
I sometimes find Chomsky's opinions to be interesting, though I virtually never agree with him. However, Cynthia is much too stupid to ever be interesting in any way, except in the way that a train wreck is interesting.
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2011, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 12:39:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 12:31:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2011, 12:29:02 PM
It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.
Naw - they would would be part of the invincible British Empire, and all be speaking English.
A distinct improvement. :D
No way, the Brits were already on the decline. French support for the US just made it so we were not dragged down into mediocrity with them, like Canada.
:huh:
The Brits were on the way up, hitting their apogee in the late 19th century. :huh:
The writing was on the wall!
Sure thing Mr. Marx. :tinfoil:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lawmakers-question-whether-obama-is-adhering-to-war-powers-resolution-in-libya/2011/05/25/AGhkjMBH_story.html?hpid=z2
QuoteBy David A. Fahrenthold and Craig Whitlock, Wednesday, May 25, 1:59 PM
Is President Obama breaking the law in Libya?
That question — which both the White House and congressional leaders seemed to have ducked in recent days — was raised by several legislators Wednesday morning at a House committee hearing.
It came on the same day that Obama, speaking in London, urged patience with the two-month-old campaign against Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.
The hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee was the most public airing so far of a complaint on Capitol Hill: that Obama has violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution by not obtaining congressional authorization for the U.S. attacks in Libya.
"The undeniable conclusion is that the president is breaking the law by continuing the unilateral offensive war in Libya," said Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), a conservative freshman testifying before the committee.
Amash has proposed a bill that would cut off funding for U.S. efforts in Libya until Obama obtains congressional authorization. "The tragedy for our system of self-government would be if Congress continued to do nothing," he said.
On Friday, Obama missed a 60-day deadline set by the Nixon-era act that required him to obtain congressional permission for the operation in Libya. Instead, he sent a letter to congressional leaders that did not mention the War Powers Resolution but urged that they pass a resolution of support for the campaign in the violence-torn country.
That resolution has been introduced in the Senate. But Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that it won't be considered until after the Memorial Day recess, which lasts all next week.
On Tuesday, in fact, it was clear that the Libya operation has brought about a remarkable moment in Washington. The White House and Republican and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill signaled a common strategy on the War Powers Resolution — a law governing the key issue of how the United States goes to war. In what seems like a political magic trick, they appear to be trying their best to ignore the law in the hope that it goes away.
Asked whether the president still has the authority to continue operations in Libya, Obama spokesman Ben Rhodes did not mention the resolution specifically.
"I think we addressed that through the letter the president sent up to Congress at the end of last week, again, reaffirming our ongoing efforts in Libya," Rhodes said. "So we believe we have the authorities we need."
Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) showed little concern that Obama had missed the deadline. "We've had good discussions on Libya," Reid said. McConnell also was noncommittal: "Discussions continue."
On Wednesday in London, there was no sign that the involvement in the Libyan uprising would let up. Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron spoke of a continued commitment to pressure Gaddafi with military attacks.
"Gaddafi and his regime need to understand that there will not be a let-up in the pressure that we are applying," Obama said. "I believe that we have built enough momentum that as long as we sustain the course that we are on that he is ultimately going to step down," Obama said.
Legal scholars say that the War Powers Resolution has been flouted repeatedly by past presidents. Congress tussled with Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton over the resolution: in the 1980s, when Reagan sent Marines to Lebanon, and in 1999, when Clinton ordered airstrikes in the Balkans.
But scholars noted that past presidents often made an argument about why the resolution didn't apply to them. As the deadline passed, Obama did not even do that.
Obama's lack of response "does take this final step of not even bothering to go through the motions," said Peter Spiro, a law professor at Temple University.
Spiro said he approved of the president's decision: He, and some other legal scholars, say the law deserves to be ignored. The resolution, Spiro said, has been unworkable and possibly unconstitutional since its enactment.
"President Obama has clearly violated the letter of law. And nobody's really jumping up and down that much," Spiro said. "That's a reflection of a consensus understanding that [this] law doesn't represent 'the law.' That the law isn't the law."
But, in Congress, some legislators have begun to raise objections. On Tuesday, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, asked William J. Burns, a White House nominee for deputy secretary of state, about the the missed deadline.
"It appears to me that potentially a precedent is being set here that ... is not a good one," Lugar told Burns. "I'm hopeful that you'll convey that back" to the White House.
And on Wednesday morning at the House committee hearing, a series of legislators blasted Obama as ignoring the resolution — and Congress itself.
"They won't even acknowledge the 60th day ... the day on which they began violating the law," said Rep. Bradley J. Sherman (D-Calif.). "The fault is also with Congress. So many of us would like to evade the contentious issues."
Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) testified before the committee about his own proposed resolution, which would express the "sense of Congress" that Obama should seek authorization for the operation in Libya.
"If you're going to go to war and send our troops into harm's way, you need us — and the American people — on board," Rooney said. "What we're asking for is simple — that the president respect our role."
Historians say that the legislators who drafted the War Powers Act were trying to address two of Washington's ingrained habits: Presidents usually seek to expand their powers, and Congress often shies away from inserting itself into ongoing wars, because the downside of meddling is so high.
The act was intended to stop both, forcing Congress into confrontations that would check the president's power.
But, since it was passed, the resolution has been undermined by the very habits it was meant to overcome.
"It's just like a [New Year's] resolution, right? You start off the new year with the desire to go the gym," but bad old habits return quickly, said Saikrishna Prakash, a law professor at the University of Virginia. "You can't tie your hands with this piece of paper."
Quote from: Habbaku on May 25, 2011, 04:03:37 PM
Historians say that the legislators who drafted the War Powers Act were trying to address two of Washington's ingrained habits: Presidents usually seek to expand their powers, and Congress often shies away from inserting itself into ongoing wars, because the downside of meddling is so high.
Well, actually it was created to address the fact that Congress was Democratic and the Presidency was occupied by Republicans.
Quote from: Caliga on May 24, 2011, 03:56:36 PM
I sometimes find Chomsky's opinions to be interesting, though I virtually never agree with him. However, Cynthia is much too stupid to ever be interesting in any way, except in the way that a train wreck is interesting.
Chomsky is usually pretty good about the scientific method and stuff like that. His mental gymnastics are usually all consistent with it, which makes them just so much more admirable for the quality of his mental backflips.
Congress should just pass the Libya authorizing resolution and send it on up if there are concerns. What's he gonna do, veto it?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 25, 2011, 07:04:25 PM
Congress should just pass the Libya authorizing resolution and send it on up if there are concerns. What's he gonna do, veto it?
They're laying the groundwork to impeach Obama if they can't beat him in the next election.
Quote from: Viking on May 25, 2011, 06:35:26 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 24, 2011, 03:56:36 PM
I sometimes find Chomsky's opinions to be interesting, though I virtually never agree with him. However, Cynthia is much too stupid to ever be interesting in any way, except in the way that a train wreck is interesting.
Chomsky is usually pretty good about the scientific method and stuff like that. His mental gymnastics are usually all consistent with it, which makes them just so much more admirable for the quality of his mental backflips.
I wish Stephen Jay Gould were still alive. That's a facinating man to read.
QuoteBenghazi blast shows risk of post-Gaddafi unrest
By William Maclean
RABAT (Reuters) – An explosion in rebel-held Benghazi may be a harbinger of the kind of unrest Libya could face in the event of Muammar Gaddafi's ousting as diehard loyalists seek to stifle revolutionary rule at birth.
The blast on Wednesday damaged a hotel used by rebels and foreigners in Benghazi, wounding one person, and rebel authorities said they believed the explosion might be linked to Gaddafi agents still operating in the east.
Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, vice chairman of the rebel National Transitional Council, said the explosion outside Tibesti hotel was believed to have been caused by a hand grenade thrown in a "desperate attempt" by Gaddafi loyalists to sow terror.
More such attacks are likely if Gaddafi is toppled, analysts say, because the abundance of weaponry in a time of war would make them relatively easy for Gaddafi hardliners to stage.
Tunisia's revolution was followed by repeated disturbances blamed on supporters of ousted Tunisia ruler Zine el Abidine Ben Ali. Iraq is another example of the chaos that can follow a dictator's departure -- violence continued for years after Saddam Hussein was overthrown by the 2003 U.S-led invasion.
Analysts say two factors will be important in minimizing the likelihood of unrest: the speed with which security forces seen as legitimate are deployed to keep order, and the degree to which the new rulers are prepared to offer reconciliation to those who held positions of responsibility under Gaddafi.
"HOTHEADS" MAY ATTEMPT SABOTAGE
Rebel official Guma el-Gamaty said similar acts of violence could occur for a few weeks after the removal of Gaddafi, adding these were more likely in the capital Tripoli than in the rebel bastion of Benghazi, but precise predictions were impossible.
"It's possible it could go on for a few weeks, but it's hard to call. There might be hotheads, ideologues, sleeper cells who might to try to sabotage the new situation," he told Reuters. "A lot will depend on how quickly the police and security forces are recalled to service and deployed."
Now in its fourth month, the Libyan conflict is deadlocked, with rebels unable to break out of their strongholds and advance toward Tripoli, where Gaddafi appears firmly entrenched.
But Western governments say they believe they are gradually wearing down Gaddafi's ability to control the country, through a combination of diplomatic pressure and military action.
Gamaty said a post-Gaddafi government would not "make the mistake" of U.S. administrators in post-invasion Baghdad who disbanded the national army, a move widely believed to have swelled the ranks of insurgents who plunged Iraq into chaos.
"We will try to make the changeover as quickly as possible, and be as inclusive as possible. We already have a network in Tripoli of hundreds of activists who will create a local council in the aftermath of Gaddafi's departure," he said.
Gamaty said he expected that "a few hundred" people with blood on their hands would seek to flee, but others would be welcome to stay and build a new government.
Alex Warren, a director of FrontierMEA, a Middle East and North Africa research firm, said that any violence against the new government would not be as organised as the Iraq insurgency.
GADDAFI'S "SHAMBLES"
"You don't have the sectarian element and there are no major opposition groups that have a clearly identified leader and there is no really ideologically driven group," he said.
But unless there was an inclusive set of talks to build a post-Gaddafi government "there could be a problem."
"The people who had a stake in the old system will need to be given an exit strategy. If there is a power void you could see looting and attempts to destabilize the new authorities."
Ashour Shamis, an opposition activist and editor based in London, said he foresaw isolated incidents but added the Gaddafi supporters staging them would not have the morale to go further and stage a highly coordinated campaign.
Nevertheless, the new government would have to try to exercise maximum vigilance and organization, he said.
Many analysts do not expect Libya to stabilize quickly after Gaddafi because 41 years of his highly personalized rule have damaged faith in the notion of public administration.
Writing in the May/June edition of Foreign Affairs, Lisa Anderson, President of the American Univerity in Cairo, said the "capricious cruelty" of Gaddafi's years in power had eroded Libyans' trust in their government, and in each other, and left a generation in their 30s and 40s who were poorly educated.
"Libya under Gaddafi has borne traces of the Italian fascism that ruled the country in its colonial days: extravagance, dogmatism and brutality," she wrote.
"The challenge for Libya is both simpler and more vexing than those facing Tunisia and Egypt: Libya confronts the complexity not of democratization, but of state formation."
"It will need to construct a coherent national identity and public administration out of Gaddafi's shambles."
QuoteBritish, French helicopters strike Gadhafi troops
By HADEEL AL-SHALCHI, Associated Press
BENGHAZI, Libya – British and French attack helicopters struck for the first time inside Libya, giving the NATO campaign more muscle against Moammar Gadhafi's forces. Hours later, Tripoli was hit by another round of airstrikes and at least eight explosions sounded in the capital.
The use of helicopters significantly ramped up NATO's operations and was a major boost to Libyan rebels, just a day after the fighters forced government troops from three western towns and broke the siege of a fourth. It was yet another erosion of Gadhafi's power since the eruption in mid-February of the uprising to end his 42-year rule.
NATO said the helicopters struck troops trying to hide in populated areas, military vehicles and equipment. Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, commander of the Libya operation, said the engagement "demonstrates the unique capabilities brought to bear by attack helicopters."
Until now, NATO has relied on attack jets, generally flying above 15,000 feet (4,500 meters) — nearly three miles (five kilometers) high. The jets primarily strike government targets but there have been cases where they missed and hit rebels instead.
The helicopters give the alliance a key advantage in close-up combat, flying at much lower altitudes.
The British Apaches hit two targets near the eastern oil town of Brega, according British Maj. Gen. Nick Pope, and separate Royal Air Force aircraft destroyed another military installation near Brega and two ammunition bunkers at the large Waddan depot in central Libya.
Brega is of strategic importance to Libya's oil industry and lies on the coastal road along the Mediterranean that leads to the capital, Tripoli. In the early days of the uprising against Gadhafi, it went back and forth between rebel and loyalist hands, but later the front line settled to the east of the town, leaving Brega under Gadhafi's control.
The French Gazelle and Tiger helicopters struck 15 military vehicles and five military command buildings, said Col. Thierry Burkhard. All the helicopters returned safely, the French and British said.
British Defense Secretary Liam Fox said the "use of the attack helicopters is a logical extension" in NATO's campaign and indicated more would be used in the future.
"We will continue with the methods we have to degrade his (Gadhafi's) command and control, to degrade his supplies," Fox said from Singapore, where he was attending an Asian security conference.
The head of the rebels' Transitional National Council, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, welcomed the helicopter attacks and emphasized that they launched from ships outside Libya.
"We welcome any measures to expedite the departure of Moammar Gadhafi, but at the same time we maintain the sovereignty of the Libyan state," Abdul-Jalil told reporters Saturday.
The conflict in Libya appears at a stalemate after nearly four months. NATO airstrikes have kept the outgunned rebels from being overrun, but the rebels have been unable to mount an effective offensive against Gadhafi's better equipped forces.
Gadhafi's regime has been slowly crumbling from within. A significant number of officers and several Cabinet ministers have defected, and most have expressed support for the opposition, but Gadhafi's hold on power shows little sign of loosening.
Gadhafi has been seen in public rarely and heard even less frequently since a NATO airstrike on his compound killed one of his sons on April 30. Questions are arising about the physical and mental state of the 69-year-old dictator, who has ruled Libya since 1969.
The NATO strikes on Saturday targeted an educational institute in eastern Tripoli where military officials and civilians studied engineering, computers and communications, according to an official who requested anonymity in line with government policy.
Libyan rebels on Friday won control of four towns in the western Nafusa mountain range, where government forces have besieged and periodically shelled rebel-held areas.
The small rebel force in the western mountains is unlikely to threaten Gadhafi's hold on Tripoli, 45 miles (70 kilometers) northwest, but the victories could bring relief to local residents by opening up roads between their communities. The western mountain population is tiny compared with the large rebel-held territories in east Libya.
Fighting continued Saturday in another part of the mountain range, near the border with Tunisia. A resident of the town of Nalut, Mohammed Jernaz, said via Skype that Gadhafi's forces fired grad rockets, injuring 10 people.
A video posted by Nalut activists on YouTube showed injured men covered with blood being transported in the back of pickup trucks. The video's authenticity could not be confirmed.
Abdul-Jalil, the head of the rebel council, and other leaders met with British Foreign Secretary William Hague in the rebels' de facto capital, Benghazi.
Hague is one of the highest-ranking foreign officials to visit rebel-held territory in eastern Libya.
He traveled with another British Cabinet minister, International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell, on a visit Hague said was to show support for those fighting Gadhafi's rule.
Hague called the National Transitional Council "the legitimate representation of the Libyan people," but fell short of calling it a government as other NATO countries like France and Italy have.
He said that British efforts to support rebel fighters were in full swing, and included providing radios, uniforms and bulletproof vests.
"I believe now the momentum has shifted increasingly against the Gadhafi regime," said Hague.
Quote from: Viking on May 25, 2011, 06:35:26 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 24, 2011, 03:56:36 PM
I sometimes find Chomsky's opinions to be interesting, though I virtually never agree with him. However, Cynthia is much too stupid to ever be interesting in any way, except in the way that a train wreck is interesting.
Chomsky is usually pretty good about the scientific method and stuff like that. His mental gymnastics are usually all consistent with it, which makes them just so much more admirable for the quality of his mental backflips.
I think you should always take care to separate Chomsky's work in linguistics and his political philosophy. His politics are kooky, but his work in linguistics are nothing short of revolutionary.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2011, 03:13:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 25, 2011, 06:35:26 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 24, 2011, 03:56:36 PM
I sometimes find Chomsky's opinions to be interesting, though I virtually never agree with him. However, Cynthia is much too stupid to ever be interesting in any way, except in the way that a train wreck is interesting.
Chomsky is usually pretty good about the scientific method and stuff like that. His mental gymnastics are usually all consistent with it, which makes them just so much more admirable for the quality of his mental backflips.
I think you should always take care to separate Chomsky's work in linguistics and his political philosophy. His politics are kooky, but his work in linguistics are nothing short of revolutionary.
Revolutionary, yes, but quite possibly wrong Language universality idea tested with biology method (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13049700) (Abstract on Nature Website (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7345/full/nature09923.html))
Edit: Declaration of bias, I find Chomsky's politics and morality contemptible and thus find much pleasure in somebody proving him wrong.
Possible, I don't know enough to say yea, or nay, but his theories have become the standard since they were published back in '60's. That alone says his influence has been massive.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2011, 07:51:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 25, 2011, 06:35:26 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 24, 2011, 03:56:36 PM
I sometimes find Chomsky's opinions to be interesting, though I virtually never agree with him. However, Cynthia is much too stupid to ever be interesting in any way, except in the way that a train wreck is interesting.
Chomsky is usually pretty good about the scientific method and stuff like that. His mental gymnastics are usually all consistent with it, which makes them just so much more admirable for the quality of his mental backflips.
I wish Stephen Jay Gould were still alive. That's a facinating man to read.
Dawkin's hated him, a good reason to like him.
Of course he hated him. Dawkins is a fundamentalist, while Gould wasn't an antisocial dick.
If I went my entire life and never heard or saw in print the word "Meme", I'd be much happier.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2011, 06:48:52 PM
Possible, I don't know enough to say yea, or nay, but his theories have become the standard since they were published back in '60's. That alone says his influence has been massive.
Isn't that part of the problem though? Bad ideas that ride the coat-tails of the good ideas of monolithic figures into the mainstream. Just look at Freud.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2011, 07:09:28 PM
If I went my entire life and never heard or saw in print the word "Meme", I'd be much happier.
Thing is, Raz,
you are a meme.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2011, 06:48:52 PM
Possible, I don't know enough to say yea, or nay, but his theories have become the standard since they were published back in '60's. That alone says his influence has been massive.
Influential yes. His problem has been that his thesis (boiled down as far as possible) is "Languages which developed in isolation from each other share common grammatical structures, we have good reason to conclude that these structures developed after the split in the language, it follows that these grammatical structures are functions of how our brains work." No empirical data has existed to test this. Now that there is such empircal data, the data supports the idea that the common grammatical structures are functions of the nature of language itself.
Basically empiricism is assraping Chomsky's rationalism.
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2011, 07:02:51 PM
Of course he hated him. Dawkins is a fundamentalist, while Gould wasn't an antisocial dick.
They got along just fine, they just disagreed. Gould's punctuated equilibrium has been used by creationists to try to imply god or interference, but Gould has rejected that completely. NOMA (non-overlapping magesteria) is just that, a rejection of the idea that god got involved. Dawkins defends punctuated equilibrium against theists, but then attacks it as a evolutionary biologist. Their true disagreement was, however, how to treat religion.
Ahh, I took his personal attacks as hatred. It could be that Dawkins is just insanely unprofessional.
Positive Al-Jazeera video report on NATO airstrikes around Misurata:
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2011/05/2011527174513216563.html (http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2011/05/2011527174513216563.html)
A businessman charters a cruise ship to help refugees return to Misurata:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/2011528144520326964.html (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/2011528144520326964.html)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2011, 08:46:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2011, 07:09:28 PM
If I went my entire life and never heard or saw in print the word "Meme", I'd be much happier.
Thing is, Raz, you are a meme.
I am unclear what this actually means. Perhaps you could clarify.
QuoteLibyan rebels breakout toward Tripoli
By HADEEL AL-SHALCHI and MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press
MISRATA, Libya – Libyan rebels Monday broke out toward Tripoli from the opposition-held port of Misrata 140 miles to the east, cracking a government siege as fighters across the country mounted a resurgence in their four-month-old revolt against Moammar Gadhafi.
The rebels gained a diplomatic boost as well when the visiting the German foreign minister said the nascent opposition government was "the legitimate representative of the Libyan people." Guido Westerwelle was visiting Benghazi, the capital of the rebel-held east of the country, to open a liaison office and hand over medical supplies.
He stopped short of full diplomatic recognition of the Transitional National Council, as has the United States, awaiting the ouster of Moammar Gadhafi from his more than 40-year rule in the oil-rich North African country.
Germany has refused to participate in NATO airstrikes in Libya and withheld its support for the U.N. resolution that allowed the attacks.
What started as a peaceful uprising against Gadhafi has become a civil war, with poorly equipped and trained rebel fighters taking control of the eastern third of Libya and pockets of the west.
But the fighting had reached a stalemate until last week when NATO began the heaviest bombardment of Gadhafi forces since the alliance took control of the skies over Libya under a U.N. resolution to protect civilians from Gadhafi's wrath. NATO has been pounding Gadhafi military and government position with increasing vigor and the rebels are again on the move.
Gadhafi's power has been considerably degraded by the NATO attacks as well military and government defections.
In London, Libyan analysts reported Monday that Gadhafi had lost another close official who defected and fled the country.
Sassi Garada, one of the first men to join Gadhafi when he took power, left Libya through Tunisia, according to Noman Benotman, a Libyan analyst in London who was in contact with his friends and family. Guma el-Gamaty, U.K. organizer for Libya's interim council, also confirmed the defection.
There were initial reports that Garada fled to Britain, where he has several family members, but Benotman said Garada was in Switzerland.
British officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss immigration and security matters, said they could not confirm whether Garada was in the U.K. Swiss Foreign ministry spokeswoman Carole Waelti told AP the government was "not aware of the possible presence of Mr. Garada in Switzerland."
Garada reportedly passed up several military promotions over the years to stay out of the limelight and serve Gadhafi, said Benotman, who works as an analyst for the London-based Quilliam Foundation.
Garada is also from Libya's Berber minority, which has often fought the Arab majority to have their language and customs protected. Many Berbers occupy the Western mountains of Libya, where Garada had been in charge of trying to neutralize tensions, el-Gamaty said.
It is not known why Garada defected or when, but he is one in a growing list of senior officials who have fled the country, suggesting Gadhafi may be losing his grip on power.
Last month, Shukri Ghanem, the Libyan oil minister and head of the National Oil Co., crossed into neighboring Tunisia.
Others who have defected include Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, one of Gadhafi's earliest supporters; Interior Minister Abdel-Fatah Younes; Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, and Ali Abdessalam Treki, a former U.N. General Assembly president. A number of ambassadors and other diplomats also have resigned.
In the major fighting near Misrata on Monday, an Associated Press photographer at the rebel front lines said they had pushed along the Mediterranean Sea to within 6 miles (10 kilometers) of Zlitan, the next city to the west of Misrata. A rebel commander said his forces, using arms seized from government weapons depots and fresh armaments shipped in from Benghazi, planned to have moved into Zlitan, by Tuesday.
Ali Terbelo, the rebel commander, said other opposition forces already were in Zlitan, trying to encircle Gadhafi troops. If the rebels take the city they would be within 85 miles (135 kilometers) of the eastern outskirts of Gadhafi's capital, Tripoli.
An AP reporter with rebel forces said shelling was intense Monday morning with rockets and artillery and mortar shells slamming into rebel lines west of Dafniya at a rate of about seven each minute. Dafniya is about 20 miles (30 kilometers) west of Misrata
Officials at Hikma Hospital in Misrata said government shelling had killed seven rebels and wounded 49 on Sunday. New casualty figures were not available but ambulances were rushing from the Dafniya line back into Misrata.
Rebels encountered a major setback, however, near the eastern oil town of Brega on Monday. Suleiman Rafathi, a doctor at the hospital in the town of Ajdabiya where the casualties were taken, said 23 rebels were killed and 26 wounded in a government ambush about 22 miles (35 kilometers) east of Brega.
The front lines between Brega and Ajdabiya have been relatively quiet in recent weeks, while fighting has raged in western Libya.
In other diplomatic developments, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke again against the Libyan regime, telling the nations of Africa on Monday to sever links with Gadhafi despite his long support and patronage for many African leaders.
In a speech on Monday to diplomats at the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital, Clinton said Africa should join most of the rest of the world in abandoning Gadhafi. She said the Libyan leader has lost all legitimacy to rule because of attacks on his own citizens.
She's urged all African leaders to demand that Gadhafi accept a cease-fire and then leave Libya.
In a lighter moment, the Gadhafi was shown on Libyan television playing chess with the visiting Russian head of the World Chess Federation. The federation is headed by the eccentric Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, who until last year was the leader of Russia's predominantly Buddhist republic of Kalmykia. He once claimed to have visited an alien spaceship.
The television report showed Gadhafi, dressed all in black and wearing dark sunglasses, playing chess Sunday evening with his Russian guest.
Russia's Interfax news agency quoted Ilyumzhinov as saying Gadhafi told him he has no intention of leaving Libya despite international pressure.
It was unclear where the chess game took place. Gadhafi's compound in the center of Tripoli has been under NATO bombardment and was hit again Sunday.
Gadhafi had not been seen in public since mid-May, and Ilyumzhinov told him how pleased he was to find him healthy and well.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fafp%2F20110613%2Fcapt.photo_1307898122219-4-0.jpg&hash=459d1dc3cbfa43c839ec33ad8e0371b0940f47b7)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fap%2F20110613%2Fcapt.ff4650fc5c564a14b62c16f4dde41678-ff4650fc5c564a14b62c16f4dde41678-0.jpg&hash=157204d0f00c0561db40af7825e69279cb200f70)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fafp%2F20110613%2Fcapt.photo_1308005343095-1-0.jpg&hash=6a30aa87cfecc912a9f2b899306f647a018ca20c)
Resting on the frontline : Rebel fighters rest close to the town of Ryayna along the Nefusa mountain frontline after trying to cut off forces loyal to Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi.
(AFP/Colin Summers)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Frids%2F20110613%2Fi%2Fr234239049.jpg&hash=dd8be931b4c2485a78256d43f84684bea84fba36)
Rebel fighters clean their weapons at the Bir Ayyad gate near the city of Zintan in the Western Mountains, some 120 km (75 miles) southwest of the capital Tripoli June 13, 2011.
REUTERS/Anis Mili
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Frids%2F20110613%2Fi%2Fr3576164012.jpg&hash=1e7fa4cc0ac48dc628c23444efa29c459305bff8)
Libyan rebel fighters fire their heavy machine gun towards forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, at a territory taken from them, after they pushed several kilometres in the direction of Zlitan, some 35km (22 miles) west of the rebel-held port city of Misrata, June 13, 2011.
REUTERS/Abdelkader Belhessin
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Frids%2F20110613%2Fi%2Fr3919023513.jpg&hash=98a3e8503f412d68e23dd999fe689954eca35c34)
Rebel soldiers repair weapons captured from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi at a workshop in Benghazi June 13, 2011 REUTERS/Esam Al-Fetori
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Frids%2F20110613%2Fi%2Fr244641623.jpg&hash=ae5e867ce7b6262a45b35115fb1e198e174f9cb8)
A Libyan rebel fighter flashes a victory sign at a territory taken from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, after rebels pushed several kilometres in the direction of Zlitan, some 35 km (22 miles) west of the rebel-held port city of Misrata, June 13, 2011.« Read less
REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fap%2F20110613%2Fcapt.e832cb0b440147258ff218e612138f2c-e832cb0b440147258ff218e612138f2c-0.jpg&hash=eabd64d62176afb1535a6603b8d0e9344b576f02)
A Libyan rebel transporter carries a captured tank previously belonging to forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, in Dafniya about 25 miles (40 kilometers) west of Misrata, Libya, Monday, June 13, 2011. The rebels had pushed along the Mediterranean Sea to within 6 miles (10 kilometers) of Zlitan, the next city to the west of Misrata. A rebel commander said his forces, using arms seized from government weapons depots and fresh armaments being shipped in from Benghazi, planned to have moved into Zlitan, by Tuesday.
(AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)
Gaddafi. :(
I'm glad to see he is using his Civil War chess set.
Hopefully this signals a permanent changing of the tide.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2011, 01:23:45 AM
Hopefully this signals a permanent changing of the tide.
yeah I see he is making a bad move, but surely the chess game didn't take place to decide the civil war? :huh:
I'm sure the rebels have plenty of former government soldiers that know how to operate that tank, but that cheapens the comedy value.
Quoteplanned to have moved into Zlitan, by Tuesday
lol
slidan
Methinks this war will make an excellent consim one day. :bowler:
"O SNAP you drew the 'Gadhafi Plays Chess' card! Roll a d6 and move a demoralized Loyalist brigade that number of hexes toward a Rebel formation, ignoring ZOC."
Quote from: Caliga on June 15, 2011, 07:55:04 AM
Methinks this war will make an excellent consim one day. :bowler:
"O SNAP you drew the 'Gadhafi Plays Chess' card! Roll a d6 and move a demoralized Loyalist brigade that number of hexes toward a Rebel formation, ignoring ZOC."
5/ SARKOZY TAKES COMMAND
It would be cool if it had a variant wherein the Italians conducted a ground invasion.
VARIANT SCENARIO: Silvio Channels Mussolini, "Risorgimento Sud!"
CDG faggits. <_<
I envision this as a CDG with hexes. :hug:
Quote from: Caliga on June 15, 2011, 08:42:12 AM
I envision this as a CDG with hexes. :hug:
<_<
I envision this as a game with 1 map, 5 counters. Retail price: $90
I envision a bowel movement.
Quote from: The Brain on June 15, 2011, 08:46:57 AM
I envision a bowel movement.
Already had one this morning.
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2011, 09:15:10 AM
Now that there is such empircal data, the data supports the idea that the common grammatical structures are functions of the nature of language itself.
What empiricial data is that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlfl31SJYiA&feature=player_embedded
LOL
Looks like the turret off a BMP-1. Not really a tank.
http://www.businessinsider.com/whowhatwhy-factchecks-the-media-more-questions-about-the-libyan-sex-atrocity-reporting-2011-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/whowhatwhy-factchecks-the-media-more-questions-about-the-libyan-sex-atrocity-reporting-2011-6)
QuoteWhoWhatWhy Factchecks the Media: More Questions About the Libyan Sex Atrocity Reporting
Russ Baker, WhoWhatWhy
Rape is tragically common in wartime—but did Qaddafi really order it?
STORY SUMMARY:
Media reporting of atrocities by the Libyan regime continues to heat up. The alleged crimes are horrific—Muammar Qaddafi ordering mass, Viagra-fueled rapes. But the claims are mitigated by some really poor journalism, raising suspicions that the public is falling victim to a disinformation campaign. Here's the latest.
Stories with a sexual component have always been instant hits in the ratings, and things are only getting worse. According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, last week, media coverage of Congressman Anthony Weiner and his pornographic tweets filled 17 percent of the "news hole" (space and time devoted by the media). The economy, by comparison, accounted for 11 percent. The Middle East also got 11 percent.
Actually, a greater percentage had something in common when you count stories on wieners of all kinds. Because a rapidly spiraling scandal involves the allegation that the embattled Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi ordered his troops to commit mass rape—and gave them Viagra to help fortify them in this atrocity.
As we noted previously, that story has been reported widely throughout the world. As we also noted, there's scant evidence that it is true—at least at this point. Moreover, it shows signs of being part of a larger disinformation effort of the sort that has always been part and parcel of war. (A war whose true purposes, as you can see from an earlier analysis we did, is consistently obscured.)
Despite reasons to be cautious, the media have picked up the ViagraRape story with the sort of enthusiasm they showed for the Anthony Weiner saga.
The Weiner story at least turned out to be true. Though that doesn't mitigate how the media pandered to public voyeurism—letting this one man's personal misdoings dominate and shut out more substantive reports, on things that actually affect us and our world.
The Libyan mass rape story is another thing entirely. As we have noted, the coverage has been characterized by recklessness and laziness. And in this case, much more is at stake than a single congressman's future.
***
Perhaps the ViagraRape story will turn out to be true. But so far there is no real evidence. There is also no logic in believing that a man in Qaddafi's dire position vis a vis public opinion would order something like that. As brutal as he has been, there is no previous track record of him ordering mass rapes. And there are many reasons to be suspicious of the story.
Now comes the latest entry in the gullibility sweepstakes. From the hallowed BBC, of all places.
...Libyan charities say they are getting reports that in the west of the country, which is particularly conservative, Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces have tended to rape women and girls in front of their fathers and brothers.
"To be seen naked and violated is worse than death for them," says Hana Elgadi. "This is a region where women will not go out of the house without covering their face with a veil."
Ms Elgadi is in a group of Libyan volunteers offering medical help and HIV tests. The organisation is also offering to pay for abortions for women who have been raped in the war.
Well, Ms. Elgadi is "in a group of Libyan volunteers". But she is not a Libyan volunteer herself, nor simply helping victims. She is an expat with a mission. On her Facebook profile, she lists herself as "Hana FreeLibya Elgadi". She lives in London, and is an investment banker. Without in any way questioning Ms. Elgadi's intentions, the fact remains that she is a declared partisan of the forces seeking to overthrow Qaddafi, not an impartial or expert eyewitness.
More from the BBC piece:
"Time is against us," says Nader Elhamessi from the Libyan aid agency, World for Libya
"For the moment pregnancies can be disguised, but not for much longer. Many fathers will kill their own daughters if they find out they have been raped."
...The charity World for Libya has engaged imams across the border in Tunisia to preach that rape is not the victim's fault.
...World for Libya is trying to reach a group of teenage girls still inside Libya whose school was attacked by forces loyal to Col Gaddafi.
"The armed men separated the girls and raped those they deemed more attractive," says Nader Elhamessi. "One of the girls cut her wrists and killed herself rather than face the shame. The rapes were only reported to us by the girls who were left alone."
The reality is that rape has always been a byproduct of war and violence (involving even American soldiers on occasion) . But the best we have here is second-hand reports from teenagers who say they themselves were not harmed. That's just not good enough before spreading a story like this.
Another basic thing journalists should do is explain what organizations are. We looked up "the Libyan aid agency World for Libya" and found that its website is hosted by a London ad agency. That agency is owned by Salah Mussa, a wealthy London-based real estate magnate and Libyan exile. His company, Chesterton, was glad to do business with Qaddafi not so long ago.
Chesterton hopes to open an office in Libya by November 2009 and work closely with the country's sovereign wealth fund there, the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA).
Unfortunately for Mussa, Goldman Sachs was there first, managing to lose 98 percent of $1.3 billion the Libyan sovereign wealth fund gave it to invest. This was reported by the Wall Street Journal. Qaddafi, furious at the losses, became increasingly hostile to Western investors seeking Libya's riches.
Back to the BBC story:
One family who contacted Ms Elgadi needed medication for HIV.
"The mother, the father and the son were all raped by Col Gaddafi's forces. The mother came to us when they discovered they had contracted HIV/Aids as a result."
Viagra
...The International Criminal Court says it believes Col Gaddafi's forces are using rape as a weapon of war. The ICC says it has reason to believe orders to rape were given, and the drug Viagra was distributed to fighters.
For more on the ICC's claim, and how thin it is, see our previous piece.
BBC, continuing:
A major in the Libyan army who has now deserted told the BBC the shipments of Viagra were widely known about, but neither he nor his colleagues saw them.
"The order to rape was not given to the regular army," says the major, who did not want his name to be used, because his family is still in Tripoli. "Col Gaddafi knew we would never accept it. It was given to the mercenaries."
So we are to take the word of an unnamed army major who deserted—and who himself says it was not the army, and that neither he nor his colleagues saw any Viagra in use. Just "widely known about" as it is "widely known about" by all of us who consume these "news reports."
Mr Jamal, the UNHCR's emergency co-ordinator for Libya, says it has not so far uncovered evidence that rape has been used as a weapon of war, although it has seen evidence of individual instances of rape throughout the country.
"We have also seen evidence that would seem to suggest that rape has been carried out by both sides, but we cannot say on what scale," he says.
Jamal's more balanced initial analysis appears late in the story, where it is easily missed by those who will naturally focus on the headline and lead paragraphs.
Libyan volunteers are advising international agencies on how to get Libyans who have been raped to come forward.
"A foreigner cannot go in there with a clipboard and a translator and get a response," says Ms Elgadi.
This of course cuts out exactly those with the credentials and objectivity who can really be trusted to assess the situation.
Again, one cannot rule out the possibility that Qaddafi personally ordered mass rape. Or that he supplied Viagra to soldiers or mercenaries following his orders. But this follows a long history of deliberate disinformation in war, notably the false stories conjured up by PR outfits during the Gulf War—including the notorious made-up tale of Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators at a Kuwaiti hospital. Congress bought that one, and the American people were up in arms, eager to support military action. The "mission creep" on Libya has expanded from an initial promise to "protect civilians" for a few days into what can only be described as yet another undeclared war.
Let the buyer beware.
As they say, the truth is always the first victim of war. But then again its much more easy to make news stories sitting behind the desk in the office, no need to go outside as plenty of people are willing to mail in stories to you. Any reason to be critical?, not really, they will print anything these days...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 15, 2011, 01:15:32 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/whowhatwhy-factchecks-the-media-more-questions-about-the-libyan-sex-atrocity-reporting-2011-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/whowhatwhy-factchecks-the-media-more-questions-about-the-libyan-sex-atrocity-reporting-2011-6)
QuoteWhoWhatWhy Factchecks the Media: More Questions About the Libyan Sex Atrocity Reporting
Russ Baker, WhoWhatWhy
Rape is tragically common in wartime—but did Qaddafi really order it?
....
Let the buyer beware.
As they say, the truth is always the first victim of war. But then again its much more easy to make news stories sitting behind the desk in the office, no need to go outside as plenty of people are willing to mail in stories to you. Any reason to be critical?, not really, they will print anything these days...
But there are other independent reports of Qaddafi forces raping women:
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/03/201132845516144204.html (http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/03/201132845516144204.html)
Quote from: mongers on June 15, 2011, 02:14:21 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 15, 2011, 01:15:32 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/whowhatwhy-factchecks-the-media-more-questions-about-the-libyan-sex-atrocity-reporting-2011-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/whowhatwhy-factchecks-the-media-more-questions-about-the-libyan-sex-atrocity-reporting-2011-6)
QuoteWhoWhatWhy Factchecks the Media: More Questions About the Libyan Sex Atrocity Reporting
Russ Baker, WhoWhatWhy
Rape is tragically common in wartime—but did Qaddafi really order it?
....
Let the buyer beware.
As they say, the truth is always the first victim of war. But then again its much more easy to make news stories sitting behind the desk in the office, no need to go outside as plenty of people are willing to mail in stories to you. Any reason to be critical?, not really, they will print anything these days...
But there are other independent reports of Qaddafi forces raping women:
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/03/201132845516144204.html (http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/03/201132845516144204.html)
I think the issue is wether Qaddafi personally ordered it.
Quote from: mongers on June 15, 2011, 02:14:21 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 15, 2011, 01:15:32 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/whowhatwhy-factchecks-the-media-more-questions-about-the-libyan-sex-atrocity-reporting-2011-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/whowhatwhy-factchecks-the-media-more-questions-about-the-libyan-sex-atrocity-reporting-2011-6)
QuoteWhoWhatWhy Factchecks the Media: More Questions About the Libyan Sex Atrocity Reporting
Russ Baker, WhoWhatWhy
Rape is tragically common in wartime—but did Qaddafi really order it?
....
Let the buyer beware.
As they say, the truth is always the first victim of war. But then again its much more easy to make news stories sitting behind the desk in the office, no need to go outside as plenty of people are willing to mail in stories to you. Any reason to be critical?, not really, they will print anything these days...
But there are other independent reports of Qaddafi forces raping women:
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/03/201132845516144204.html (http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/03/201132845516144204.html)
https://thedisorderofthings.wordpress.com/tag/suleiman-refadi/ (https://thedisorderofthings.wordpress.com/tag/suleiman-refadi/)
QuoteThe testimony of Suleiman Refadi, an Ajdabiya surgeon, in this Al Jazeera piece is the closest thing to a direct claim that Viagra has been distributed to troops. But, as Lynch points out, Human Rights Watch followed up his allegations and say that Refadi had "no direct evidence", which I assume means either that he himself hadn't seen the Viagra and condoms, or that some had been found, but not in any pattern that would associate them with a strategy of war rape.
Meh, wait till somebody reports how Iraqi troops in Benghazi are turning over baby incubators.
QuoteLibyan civilians build weapons to fight Gadhafi
By HADEEL AL-SHALCHI, Associated Press
MISRATA, Libya – Aref Abu Zeid used to be a heavy equipment engineer at the Libya Steel Company. Now he runs an 80-man team working 12 hours a day turning out rockets and weapons to fight Moammar Gadhafi's forces.
In this rebel stronghold in western Libya, civilian engineers, mechanics and tradesmen are pumping out materiel to arm the uprising against Gadhafi's rule that has become a civil war.
"None of us here have anything to do with the military," said Abu Zeid, 50, a short man with a thick salt and pepper beard and an easy smile. "Our need to protect our homes, our lives and our city forced us into this war work."
Misrata, the country's third-largest city located 125 miles (200 kilometers) southeast of the capital, is home to the largest steel company in the country and metal is always available here.
"Owners of carpentry and mechanical supply warehouses would just open their doors," Abu Zeid said. "They told us 'Take what you want.' Others bring us piles of money to buy what we need."
At the beginning of the war in Misrata, mechanics were repairing arms in their homes and garages. But as it raged on, the engineers realized they needed bigger operations and a more organized force.
That's when about eight schools across the city turned into weapons' workshops. Volunteers flooded in to help.
Abu Zeid's operation — the Complete Industrial Skills College — is a sprawling campus with shops fitted with welding gear and machinery where youngsters formerly learned engineering and machine making.
Now the weapons-making crews receive request forms from the front lines that ask for specific machinery and weapons.
Clanging metal and sparking welders fill the main workshop. The floor is strewn with electrical wiring and scrap metal. Old instructional and safety posters still hang on the walls, a reminder that this was once a school.
Two men worked on installing Grad rockets onto the back of a pickup truck. Scavenged car parts, scrap metal and captured rocket launchers made up the rest of the project.
The truck itself was one of hundreds the rebels found stored in Gadhafi's government and military buildings. They are Chinese knockoffs of a popular Toyota 4-wheel drive called the Chao Yung Highlander.
"Without these Chinese cars we wouldn't have won this war in Misrata," said Abu Zeid. He caressed the side of the truck.
Once fitted with a weapon, the truck is painted black — the words "Feb 17 Revolution" spray- painted in white. The tricolor rebel flag emblazons the side of the vehicle.
In another workshop, the wooden butts of AK-47 automatic rifles are repaired and replaced.
Across the workshops, there are mechanics, engineers, and welders who've been tested as they turn their civilian knowledge into weapons and ammunition design and the trajectory of rockets.
Homemade, rust-brown steel rockets lean in a pile against a wall. Near them are rockets captured from Gadhafi troops.
"We had no time to learn, we had to just become creative," said Ali Ibrahim, who used to drive trucks and now builds rockets.
He said that at the beginning, rebels weapons makers were just working from intuition. Now they can copy and take ideas from the old Soviet and former East Bloc weapons taken from Gadhafi soldiers.
But many of the men at this workshop have nothing to do with mechanics or engineering at all.
Before the war started, Mohammed al-Ahmar ran a women's clothing store called 'The Princesses' Palace' off Tripoli Street. Some of the fiercest battles between Libyan rebels and Gadhafi's army rattled along that street for days.
"Gadhafi's troops destroyed my shop and I lost 12 friends in the fighting," he said. "How could I just repair and open my shop again and go back to business?" he asked.
Al-Ahmar, 38, said he wanted to honor the memory of his dead friends. So he showed up one day at the college where he heard mechanics and engineers were maintaining weapons.
Today, wearing a gray mechanic's uniform, he balanced a cigarette between his lips as bored a hole into a slab of metal. It's destined to be part of a machine gun.
"The guys here are easy on me. They know my skills are limited in this kind of work, so they teach me something new everyday. I do small things like weld and cut metal," he said. "I am definitely going back to the clothing business as soon as Gadhafi falls."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fap%2F20110620%2Fcapt.d9a970d8f1d84cbb90fc61c8c73be2a6-7d434918dae141d5a82e1d2860dbb69b-0.jpg&hash=7f96725d5cc53046a37e4a339c2f79f3a729a2e9)
Libyan mechanic welds weapons shield
FILE - In this Thursday, June 16, 2011 file photo, a Libyan mechanic welds a weapons shield on a pickup truck in an industrial college turned into a weapons workshop in Misrata, Libya. Civilian engineers, mechanics and tradesmen have become weapons makers, pumping out materiel for the frontline and the hoped-for march on Tripoli, Gadhafi's capital, 100 miles (160 kilometers) east along the Mediterranean Sea.
(AP Photo/Hassan Ammar, File)
Man, this war really is Mad Max.
They really shouldn't have to be doing that. We should be airdropping weapons and green beanies to them.
QuoteScavenged car parts, scrap metal and captured rocket launchers made up the rest of the project.
What an embarrassment to NATO. That is what happens when you limit your own options.
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2011, 07:16:19 PM
Man, this war really is Mad Max.
I think it's more a B.A. Baracus/A-Team "helping the little guy turn his truck into an armored vehicle" montage.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2011, 07:39:55 PM
What an embarrassment to NATO. That is what happens when you limit your own options.
:yes:
A frog Marine regiment backed by a big boy carrier would have ended this bullshit a long time ago.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 20, 2011, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2011, 07:39:55 PM
What an embarrassment to NATO. That is what happens when you limit your own options.
:yes:
A frog Marine regiment backed by a big boy carrier would have ended this bullshit a long time ago.
Hell, even just the freakin' Foreign Legion.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 20, 2011, 07:53:49 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2011, 07:16:19 PM
Man, this war really is Mad Max.
I think it's more B.A. Baracus/A-Team turning-truck-into-armored-vehicle montage.
Who are we kidding, it's more like a Lindsay-Sidney-Greenbush-doing-a-faceplant-downhill-during-the-opening-credits-of-Little-House-On-The-Prairie.
There been any progress of note lately btw? The back and forth seems to have stopped but...not much of note being reported beyond NATO bombings.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2011, 07:58:56 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 20, 2011, 07:53:49 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2011, 07:16:19 PM
Man, this war really is Mad Max.
I think it's more B.A. Baracus/A-Team turning-truck-into-armored-vehicle montage.
Who are we kidding, it's more like a Lindsay-Sidney-Greenbush-doing-a-faceplant-downhill-during-the-opening-credits-of-Little-House-On-The-Prairie.
Or...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxKobq.jpg&hash=88f885e756c178ea7708425de6f3bc2d88fa4d7b)
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2011, 08:12:45 PM
There been any progress of note lately btw? The back and forth seems to have stopped but...not much of note being reported beyond NATO bombings.
I read that the rebels have been slowly advancing towards Tripoli, having broken the siege of Misrata. My feeling is that the rebels are biding their time, being trained by former Libyan officers and outside trainers, and equipped by outside nations, getting ready for going on the offensive. Makes sense to do so, rather than squander their strength like happened before, when they were out matched by the Libyan military.
The Tripolitania Front...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg706.imageshack.us%2Fimg706%2F8521%2Ftripolitanianfront.jpg&hash=2a433564d5777bd7cb8f65314f4f62637f18390b)
I guess they figure it's been milked long enough.
Quote
House to vote on authorizing or ending Libya mission
By Russell Berman - 06/21/11 07:37 PM ET
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) plans to introduce two Libya measures that present House lawmakers with a stark choice: Vote to authorize the U.S. combat mission or vote to end it.
House Republicans will discuss the proposals at a conference meeting Wednesday morning, and votes could occur on both by the end of the week.
One resolution would mirror a version proposed Tuesday by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) that authorizes a limited U.S. military mission for one year, but prohibits the use of ground troops except to defend American officials in danger. The other resolution, Boehner said, would remove U.S. forces from Libya under the War Powers Resolution "except for forces engaged in non-hostile actions such as search & rescue, aerial re-fueling, operational planning, intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance, and non-combat missions."
The proposals have the potential to settle - or intensify - what has become a rancorous debate in the House over the Libya mission and whether Obama has flouted the War Powers Resolution by not seeking congressional authorization. Boehner has ramped up his criticism of the president's handling of the operation and said in a statement Tuesday that the White House's justification of the mission's legality "is not credible."
"We have no desire to damage the NATO alliance, which has been a strong force for peace and stability in Europe and around the world," Boehner said in a statement. "We know that soldiers, sailors, and airmen from our allies have fought by our side for decades, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we honor their service. Still, the White House must not ignore its obligations to the American people and the laws of this country."
He added: "If the commander-in-chief believes that intervention in Libya is important for our national security, he has a responsibility to make a case for it – clearly and publicly – and seek authorization. In the three months since military action in Libya began, none of this has occurred. The American people deserve to have their voice heard in this debate, and Congress has a responsibility to hold the White House accountable."
Whether either resolution will have the support to pass the House is unclear. While the House has come close to blocking funds for the mission in recent weeks, a measure authorizing the operation could draw support from Republicans whose concerns have focused on the lack of congressional input.
The House is also likely to consider separate proposals to restrict funding for the Libya campaign as part of a Defense appropriations bill this week.
The White House has not formally requested authorization from Congress, arguing that the mission does not require one because the limited U.S. role in the NATO-led effort does not constitute the legal definition of "hostilities" in the War Powers Resolution. Press secretary Jay Carney has separately warned against House action to restrict funding, saying it would send "a bad message" to Libyan dictator Moammar Ghadafi and to U.S. allies.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/167715-house-to-vote-on-authorizing-or-ending-libya-mission
About time.
I think Boehner is right. Will this be an enforcement of the WPA?
Looks like the House didn't pass a bill supporting the Libyan adventure. Almost all republicans were against it, Democrats were split with a slight majority favoring it. I wonder if he GOP would have supported it if the President was one of theirs. I remember them going on about a "Muscular Presidency" not so long ago. Oh well, I think they were right to do it even if they did it for the wrong reasons.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 12:15:42 PM
Looks like the House didn't pass a bill supporting the Libyan adventure. Almost all republicans were against it, Democrats were split with a slight majority favoring it. I wonder if he GOP would have supported it if the President was one of theirs. I remember them going on about a "Muscular Presidency" not so long ago. Oh well, I think they were right to do it even if they did it for the wrong reasons.
Pretty much agree. There is some hypocrisy on the GOP side. I opposed the Libyan thing from the beginning, but I'm a little dubious on the constitutionality of the WPA so I wouldn't have used that as my argument.
So what does this mean?
I can't wait for Money to show up and tell spiess he opposed the Libyan intervention because he hates TEH BLACKS. :cool:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 12:15:42 PM
Looks like the House didn't pass a bill supporting the Libyan adventure. Almost all republicans were against it, Democrats were split with a slight majority favoring it. I wonder if he GOP would have supported it if the President was one of theirs. I remember them going on about a "Muscular Presidency" not so long ago. Oh well, I think they were right to do it even if they did it for the wrong reasons.
As opposed to the adventure as I am, this is stupid. The most humane and sensible thing to do at this point is actually commit to getting rid of Qaddafi and ending this. I can't imagine we would let him win the civil war and stay in power at this point.
Quote from: Jacob on June 24, 2011, 12:44:42 PM
So what does this mean?
Probably nothing. The lawyers here would know a lot better than me, but I don't think there is a way to bring a case on this. I think the check on presidential power in this case is impeachment, which obviously won't happen.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2011, 12:48:11 PM
As opposed to the adventure as I am, this is stupid. The most humane and sensible thing to do at this point is actually commit to getting rid of Qaddafi and ending this. I can't imagine we would let him win the civil war and stay in power at this point.
It isn't at all obvious that the most humane and sensible thing to do is to topple Gaddafi. You have no idea if the regime that will pop up after him will be worse or not.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 24, 2011, 01:01:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2011, 12:48:11 PM
As opposed to the adventure as I am, this is stupid. The most humane and sensible thing to do at this point is actually commit to getting rid of Qaddafi and ending this. I can't imagine we would let him win the civil war and stay in power at this point.
It isn't at all obvious that the most humane and sensible thing to do is to topple Gaddafi. You have no idea if the regime that will pop up after him will be worse or not.
It isn't obvious, but it is a pretty decent play.
Getting rid of dictators doesn't always turn out better, but dictators are usually bad enough that it is worth taking the chance.
And since the cost here is pretty low (we are talking about supporting others fighting, not fighting ourselves) it seems worth the shot, IMO.
I agree. However, we know Gadhafi is a cruel dictator, and we don't know for sure that's what he will be replaced with.
I never would have gotten involved in that mess in the first place, but since we're in, we might as well deep-six the regime that we know is hostile to the ROTW and its own people, since there's a chance it might be followed by a friendly one.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 24, 2011, 01:01:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2011, 12:48:11 PM
As opposed to the adventure as I am, this is stupid. The most humane and sensible thing to do at this point is actually commit to getting rid of Qaddafi and ending this. I can't imagine we would let him win the civil war and stay in power at this point.
It isn't at all obvious that the most humane and sensible thing to do is to topple Gaddafi. You have no idea if the regime that will pop up after him will be worse or not.
I can't imagine we would let a guy with a terrorist history survive after we overtly support a war to overthrow him. So if it is predetermined that he has to go, lets do what it takes to end the war, whether or not the next regime is better or worse. At least that way this conflict will be over.
Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2011, 01:05:18 PM
I agree. However, we know Gadhafi is a cruel dictator, and we don't know for sure that's what he will be replaced with.
I never would have gotten involved in that mess in the first place, but since we're in, we might as well deep-six the regime that we know is hostile to the ROTW and its own people, since there's a chance it might be followed by a friendly one.
And if it isn't followed by a friendly one? Do we just wash our hands of the matter if it turns out to be worse than Gaddafi?
Yes. :sleep: Like I said, the intervention was a mistake in the first place.
That's the problem, though. If it does turn out to be even worse than Gaddafi, I think we're setting ourselves up to be obligated to make sure that they're deep-sixed, too.
I know... therein lies the quandry and why I would never have gotten involved. Then again, I'm not a deluded self-important egomaniac that thinks I can single-handedly remold the world... which is why I'd never be POTUS. :cool:
As Berkut said, "Getting rid of dictators doesn't always turn out better, but dictators are usually bad enough that it is worth taking the chance." So there will at least be some people who want to get involved again, so we will have another war and messy situation. Finally, well down the road, Libya will be a mess and we will be able to say, "we tried, Libya is just too poor with too much of a tradition of fighting, we can't make anything work there."
So what you are saying is that we'll be following the British/Soviet/American strategy with regard to Afghanistan here too. :showoff:
The question here is not "Should the US topple Qaddafi and then take over responsibility for whatever happens afterwards".
We are not talking about that - just whether or not we should help out some people fighting against a dictator. I think the mistake we make is turning this into something more than what it is, and then accepting a sense of responsibility because of that exaggerated sense.
There are some people trying to get rid of a dictator, and we decided to help them out in a limited manner. I hope that works out well. If it does, great. If it does not, bummer. Either way, I don't see how us helping group A get rid of group B obligates us to help group C get rid of group A at some future point.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2011, 12:48:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 12:15:42 PM
Looks like the House didn't pass a bill supporting the Libyan adventure. Almost all republicans were against it, Democrats were split with a slight majority favoring it. I wonder if he GOP would have supported it if the President was one of theirs. I remember them going on about a "Muscular Presidency" not so long ago. Oh well, I think they were right to do it even if they did it for the wrong reasons.
As opposed to the adventure as I am, this is stupid. The most humane and sensible thing to do at this point is actually commit to getting rid of Qaddafi and ending this. I can't imagine we would let him win the civil war and stay in power at this point.
I see it as perfect opportunity to enforce the the WPA. We really don't lose anything, we've had Gaddafi mad at us before so it's not like it will be new territory. I would like to see war making powers back in the hands of Congress rather then President. Besides, maybe our Euro friends can pick up the slack. It is their backyard after all. It'll give them something to do.
I actually agree with Obama's claim that this involvement does not rise to the level of war making. We are supporting allies who are supporting rebels. We are not at war, not even a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, not at war" war.
Our planes are dropping bombs on people. I'd say that's fairly warish.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 02:25:11 PM
I see it as perfect opportunity to enforce the the WPA. We really don't lose anything, we've had Gaddafi mad at us before so it's not like it will be new territory. I would like to see war making powers back in the hands of Congress rather then President. Besides, maybe our Euro friends can pick up the slack. It is their backyard after all. It'll give them something to do.
Dunno if I want a wounded Qadaffi to survive this mess, even if he gives up power & flees. He was harmless to us before hostilities and it was a dumbass move to get involved, but going forward he's a threat to us as long as he's breathing air.
I'd like to see our Euro allies put some damned boots on the ground and finish the job, but it seems like they're incapable of anything requiring initiative :mellow:
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2011, 02:28:07 PM
I actually agree with Obama's claim that this involvement does not rise to the level of war making. We are supporting allies who are supporting rebels. We are not at war, not even a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, not at war" war.
I almost don't even care about this as an issue. What really bothers me is that he got us involved in the first place with no initial explanation. All he could offer up later on was that Qadaffi threatened to do mean things to some people inside his own borders. How that matters to our national interests while we're flat broke is beyond me.
If you would vaporize, you must first authorize.
Quote from: derspiess on June 24, 2011, 02:44:03 PM
I'd like to see our Euro allies put some damned boots on the ground and finish the job, but it seems like they're incapable of anything requiring initiative :mellow:
:yes:
Ultimately, we picked the wrong side in the dubya dubya two. :Embarrass:
Quote from: derspiess on June 24, 2011, 02:44:03 PM
I'd like to see our Euro allies put some damned boots on the ground and finish the job, but it seems like they're incapable of anything requiring initiative :mellow:
It's Kosovo all over again. "Please intervene America! There are war crimes over there! We have your back. Well, by "have your back", we mean that our politicians will raise a ruckus about American imperialism and score cheap political points by stirring up anti-American sentiments."
Sigh. With friends like these...
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 03:37:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 24, 2011, 02:44:03 PM
I'd like to see our Euro allies put some damned boots on the ground and finish the job, but it seems like they're incapable of anything requiring initiative :mellow:
It's Kosovo all over again. "Please intervene America! There are war crimes over there! We have your back. Well, by "have your back", we mean that our politicians will raise a ruckus about American imperialism and score cheap political points by stirring up anti-American sentiments."
Sigh. With friends like these...
It's funny because it's true. ^_^
And you know what is the real icing on the cake?
Every time an American soldier dies, a European gets his Wings. :sleep:
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 04:24:47 PM
And you know what is the real icing on the cake?
Every time an American soldier dies, a European gets his Wings. :sleep:
Hope they aren't Airbus wings, or he'll need flippers as well.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 24, 2011, 12:44:42 PM
So what does this mean?
Probably nothing. The lawyers here would know a lot better than me, but I don't think there is a way to bring a case on this. I think the check on presidential power in this case is impeachment, which obviously won't happen.
Congress can cut off the money.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 03:37:41 PM
It's Kosovo all over again. "Please intervene America! There are war crimes over there! We have your back. Well, by "have your back", we mean that our politicians will raise a ruckus about American imperialism and score cheap political points by stirring up anti-American sentiments."
Sigh. With friends like these...
:blink:
The UK offered up 50 000 troops and to lead a ground force in Kosovo. That convinced the US to join in threatening a ground war which, in turn, scared the Serbs into withdrawing. There was very significant European commitment - at least from the UK.
And find me one (non-German and non-extremist) example of anyone complaining about American imperialism with Kosovo.
For what it's worth I initially opposed this war, but I've changed my mind. In a weird way I think the stalemate - which seems to be cracking - has helped avert my worries. We are fighting to ultimately remove the Gadaffi family from power. We have probably prevented atrocities against civilians. But also the time that this has dragged on has allowed the rebels to organise a sort-of alternative government that's in country and does seem to be directing the Free Libyan Forces which makes me think that the post-Gadaffi phase needn't be chaotic.
I like what the US has done which does seem to me to be supporting their allies (incidentally I quite like this whole leading from behind thing, I've been reading books on the ACW for the first time and it seems like the way Lincoln behaved - but that's for a whole other thread) because there are things like surveillance flights that we simply can't do. I appreciate that, but do think Obama needs Congressional approval.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2011, 05:58:22 AM
The UK offered up 50 000 troops and to lead a ground force in Kosovo. That convinced the US to join in threatening a ground war which, in turn, scared the Serbs into withdrawing. There was very significant European commitment - at least from the UK.
You mean, only from the UK. Tony Blair was the only European leader that truly stood up as said, "because this doesn't happen in Europe any more."
Too bad your nation's rich history of faggoty-ass generalship continued with that faggoty-ass Jackson.
Quotebut do think Obama needs Congressional approval.
Fuck them. Fickle bitches. If it were a derspeiss white boy from the Grand Cracker Party, the Republitards would be in bloodlust.
Wes Clark was a whiny little bitch. He couldn't even win the respect of his subordinates, so what made him think he could win the respect of a nation?
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2011, 09:42:28 AM
Wes Clark was a whiny little bitch. He couldn't even win the respect of his subordinates, so what made him think he could win the respect of a nation?
You must be so glad we have NAFTA, so there's no tariffs involved when you swallow Hansmeister's jizz.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2011, 05:58:22 AM
:blink:
The UK offered up 50 000 troops and to lead a ground force in Kosovo. That convinced the US to join in threatening a ground war which, in turn, scared the Serbs into withdrawing. There was very significant European commitment - at least from the UK.
Italians were pretty pissy about it.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2011, 11:00:14 AM
Italians were pretty pissy about it.
D'Alema and Berlusconi supported it - so both of the major political leaders of the two big blocs. The Italian government supported it and contributed. As everywhere else in Europe the only real opposition came from the extreme left, it's just that Italy has a far larger extreme left than most of the world.
Quote
Fuck them. Fickle bitches. If it were a derspeiss white boy from the Grand Cracker Party, the Republitards would be in bloodlust.
I think this is probably true. Doesn't stop them being right.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2011, 10:23:37 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2011, 09:42:28 AM
Wes Clark was a whiny little bitch. He couldn't even win the respect of his subordinates, so what made him think he could win the respect of a nation?
You must be so glad we have NAFTA, so there's no tariffs involved when you swallow Hansmeister's jizz.
It's a shame that NAFTA doesn't allow you guys to get socialized medicine.
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2011, 11:59:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2011, 10:23:37 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2011, 09:42:28 AM
Wes Clark was a whiny little bitch. He couldn't even win the respect of his subordinates, so what made him think he could win the respect of a nation?
You must be so glad we have NAFTA, so there's no tariffs involved when you swallow Hansmeister's jizz.
It's a shame that NAFTA doesn't allow you guys to get socialized medicine.
It wasn't NAFTA
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ericmetaxas.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fronald-reagan-socialized-medicine-lp21.jpg&hash=7577998bb8a496ab14a43c54918979e8d873afa3)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2011, 06:25:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2011, 11:59:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2011, 10:23:37 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2011, 09:42:28 AM
Wes Clark was a whiny little bitch. He couldn't even win the respect of his subordinates, so what made him think he could win the respect of a nation?
You must be so glad we have NAFTA, so there's no tariffs involved when you swallow Hansmeister's jizz.
It's a shame that NAFTA doesn't allow you guys to get socialized medicine.
It wasn't NAFTA
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ericmetaxas.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fronald-reagan-socialized-medicine-lp21.jpg&hash=7577998bb8a496ab14a43c54918979e8d873afa3)
It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you are - this kind is back and forth is what makes Languish great. :)
Looks like the Rebels are making some progress in the west.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-rebels-20110627,0,3634474.story
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2011, 07:58:56 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 20, 2011, 07:53:49 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2011, 07:16:19 PM
Man, this war really is Mad Max.
I think it's more B.A. Baracus/A-Team turning-truck-into-armored-vehicle montage.
Who are we kidding, it's more like a Lindsay-Sidney-Greenbush-doing-a-faceplant-downhill-during-the-opening-credits-of-Little-House-On-The-Prairie.
:D I forgot about that, had to go watch it on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhHrOgOkXZw
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2011, 06:25:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2011, 11:59:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2011, 10:23:37 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2011, 09:42:28 AM
Wes Clark was a whiny little bitch. He couldn't even win the respect of his subordinates, so what made him think he could win the respect of a nation?
You must be so glad we have NAFTA, so there's no tariffs involved when you swallow Hansmeister's jizz.
It's a shame that NAFTA doesn't allow you guys to get socialized medicine.
It wasn't NAFTA
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ericmetaxas.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fronald-reagan-socialized-medicine-lp21.jpg&hash=7577998bb8a496ab14a43c54918979e8d873afa3)
The Gipper was ahead of his time when it came to sniffing out my death panels.
But seriously, it's hard to take Reagan seriously on policy issues, what with the whole voodoo economics thing.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2011, 08:42:11 PM
Looks like the Rebels are making some progress in the west.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-rebels-20110627,0,3634474.story
Problem is that rebels so far has proven bad at taking and holding on to larger towns. Also after Bir Ghanam and the Nafusa Mountains is there open plain all around, again to the disadvantage of the rebels, as seen out side Misrata in the west and the oil twon of Brega in the east...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 26, 2011, 11:56:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2011, 08:42:11 PM
Looks like the Rebels are making some progress in the west.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-rebels-20110627,0,3634474.story
Problem is that rebels so far has proven bad at taking and holding on to larger towns. Also after Bir Ghanam and the Nafusa Mountains is there open plain all around, again to the disadvantage of the rebels, as seen out side Misrata in the west and the oil twon of Brega in the east...
Shouldn't NATO air assets be able to pound Government forces in the open?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2011, 11:59:28 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 26, 2011, 11:56:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2011, 08:42:11 PM
Looks like the Rebels are making some progress in the west.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-rebels-20110627,0,3634474.story
Problem is that rebels so far has proven bad at taking and holding on to larger towns. Also after Bir Ghanam and the Nafusa Mountains is there open plain all around, again to the disadvantage of the rebels, as seen out side Misrata in the west and the oil twon of Brega in the east...
Shouldn't NATO air assets be able to pound Government forces in the open?
Tanks and artillery, yes. Lightly armed soldiers, no...
You would be surprised to see how mush a single infantry company, supported by a few light mortars can do again a disorganized mob like the Libyan rebels...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 26, 2011, 11:56:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2011, 08:42:11 PM
Looks like the Rebels are making some progress in the west.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-rebels-20110627,0,3634474.story
Problem is that rebels so far has proven bad at taking and holding on to larger towns. Also after Bir Ghanam and the Nafusa Mountains is there open plain all around, again to the disadvantage of the rebels, as seen out side Misrata in the west and the oil twon of Brega in the east...
Shrug. Just because they are not good at something now doesn't mean they won't be good at it later. It takes time to train a bunch of rebels. The writing is on the wall for the government forces, it is just a matter of time.
It's not like there is some kind of huge hurry, and if the rebels don't win in the next 6 weeks they lose or something.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 27, 2011, 12:08:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2011, 11:59:28 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 26, 2011, 11:56:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2011, 08:42:11 PM
Looks like the Rebels are making some progress in the west.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-rebels-20110627,0,3634474.story
Problem is that rebels so far has proven bad at taking and holding on to larger towns. Also after Bir Ghanam and the Nafusa Mountains is there open plain all around, again to the disadvantage of the rebels, as seen out side Misrata in the west and the oil twon of Brega in the east...
Shouldn't NATO air assets be able to pound Government forces in the open?
Tanks and artillery, yes. Lightly armed soldiers, no...
You would be surprised to see how mush a single infantry company, supported by a few light mortars can do again a disorganized mob like the Libyan rebels...
Time to bring out the napalm.
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2011, 12:13:09 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 26, 2011, 11:56:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2011, 08:42:11 PM
Looks like the Rebels are making some progress in the west.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-rebels-20110627,0,3634474.story
Problem is that rebels so far has proven bad at taking and holding on to larger towns. Also after Bir Ghanam and the Nafusa Mountains is there open plain all around, again to the disadvantage of the rebels, as seen out side Misrata in the west and the oil twon of Brega in the east...
Shrug. Just because they are not good at something now doesn't mean they won't be good at it later. It takes time to train a bunch of rebels. The writing is on the wall for the government forces, it is just a matter of time.
It's not like there is some kind of huge hurry, and if the rebels don't win in the next 6 weeks they lose or something.
Actually, they lose 5 Victory Points per turn starting with the Aug I turn if Gaddafi is still holding on.
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2011, 12:13:09 AM
Shrug. Just because they are not good at something now doesn't mean they won't be good at it later. It takes time to train a bunch of rebels. The writing is on the wall for the government forces, it is just a matter of time.
It's not like there is some kind of huge hurry, and if the rebels don't win in the next 6 weeks they lose or something.
And the rebels are moving forward taking the road that connects Tripoli to Tunisia and so on. I also, to be honest, think their resilience is impressive. They need - and are getting training - but I think, especially in Misrata, they deserve a lot more respect. The NYT's reporting has been superb:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/world/africa/17misurata.html
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2011, 06:12:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2011, 12:13:09 AM
Shrug. Just because they are not good at something now doesn't mean they won't be good at it later. It takes time to train a bunch of rebels. The writing is on the wall for the government forces, it is just a matter of time.
It's not like there is some kind of huge hurry, and if the rebels don't win in the next 6 weeks they lose or something.
And the rebels are moving forward taking the road that connects Tripoli to Tunisia and so on. I also, to be honest, think their resilience is impressive. They need - and are getting training - but I think, especially in Misrata, they deserve a lot more respect. The NYT's reporting has been superb:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/world/africa/17misurata.html
Tribal savages like to wage war. :sleep:
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2011, 06:42:37 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2011, 06:12:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2011, 12:13:09 AM
Shrug. Just because they are not good at something now doesn't mean they won't be good at it later. It takes time to train a bunch of rebels. The writing is on the wall for the government forces, it is just a matter of time.
It's not like there is some kind of huge hurry, and if the rebels don't win in the next 6 weeks they lose or something.
And the rebels are moving forward taking the road that connects Tripoli to Tunisia and so on. I also, to be honest, think their resilience is impressive. They need - and are getting training - but I think, especially in Misrata, they deserve a lot more respect. The NYT's reporting has been superb:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/world/africa/17misurata.html
Tribal savages like to wage war. :sleep:
I guess a Magyar would know.
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 06:48:40 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2011, 06:42:37 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2011, 06:12:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2011, 12:13:09 AM
Shrug. Just because they are not good at something now doesn't mean they won't be good at it later. It takes time to train a bunch of rebels. The writing is on the wall for the government forces, it is just a matter of time.
It's not like there is some kind of huge hurry, and if the rebels don't win in the next 6 weeks they lose or something.
And the rebels are moving forward taking the road that connects Tripoli to Tunisia and so on. I also, to be honest, think their resilience is impressive. They need - and are getting training - but I think, especially in Misrata, they deserve a lot more respect. The NYT's reporting has been superb:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/world/africa/17misurata.html
Tribal savages like to wage war. :sleep:
I guess a Magyar would know.
yep, we had an American base here in the 90s
France air-dropped arms ("humanitarian aid") to rebels in Western Libya
QuoteLibya conflict: France air-dropped arms to rebels
29 June 11 15:21
France has air-dropped weapons to rebels fighting Col Muammar Gaddafi's troops in Western Libya, the French military has confirmed.
Light arms and ammunition were sent to Berber tribal fighters in the Nafusa mountains in early June, it said.
Earlier, a report in Le Figaro newspaper said the arms included rocket launchers and anti-tank missiles.
France, a leading force in the Nato operation in Libya, did not inform its allies about the move, Le Figaro said.
"We began by dropping humanitarian aid: food, water and medical supplies," said Col Thierry Burkhard, spokesman for the French general staff.
"During the operation, the situation for the civilians on the ground worsened. We dropped arms and means of self-defence, mainly ammunition," he told AFP.
He said the arms were "light infantry weapons of the rifle type", dropped over a period of several days "so that civilians would not be massacred".
The BBC's Christian Fraser in Paris says the statement is likely to bring further criticism from the likes of Russia and China, who believe Nato and its allies have already gone beyond the remit of the UN resolution authorising international military action in Libya for the protection of civilians.
......
Rest of item here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-africa-13955751 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-africa-13955751)
This whole Libyan situation reminds me of Civ V, when you're trying to help the city-state under attack with units. After you give them a couple of helicopters, and they proceed to leave them out in the open and have them destroyed by everyone who's not lazy, you just say fuck it, and obliterate the invading force yourself with your own helicopters, stealth bombers, and mech infantry.
France really needs to just escalate Operation Épervier & be done with this shit.
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2011, 09:42:28 AM
Wes Clark was a whiny little bitch. He couldn't even win the respect of his subordinates, so what made him think he could win the respect of a nation?
:secret: Say something about Al Haig now.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 29, 2011, 10:06:23 AM
France really needs to just escalate Operation Épervier & be done with this shit.
But that might make it unpopular in France. Best to try to fight a war without anybody noticing.
I wonder if they have withdrawn the De Gaulle yet. It was due to be rotated out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8611199/Sudanese-army-seizes-southern-Libyan-town.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8611199/Sudanese-army-seizes-southern-Libyan-town.html)
QuoteSudanese army seizes southern Libyan town
The Sudanese army has seized a town in southern Libya that is the gateway to oilfields crucial to rebel hopes of establishing financial independence.
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
10:21PM BST 01 Jul 2011
Officials overseeing the no-fly zone enforced by Nato over Libya said the Sudanese move north of border had not encountered resistance from troops loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi.
Since the February uprising against his regime, the Libyan leader's forces have been concentrated around Tripoli, the capital; Sirte, the eastern town that is Col Gaddafi's birthplace and Sebha, the desert outpost where the dictator grew up.
Officials said control of the town of Kufra and nearby military base granted the Sudanese a key strategic foothold between the regime and the opposition Transitional National Council (TNC) which holds the eastern seaboard and a series of rebel enclaves.
The Sudanese have not disrupted efforts to resume oil production on nearby southern oilfields.
"Our surveillance shows that they are not moving oil, so its not about money in the short term," said one Western official. "The commercial oil companies monitoring is reporting that there has been no movement of oil out of Libya.
But the Sudanese clearly now have a stake in Libya re-emerging in the oil market.
"The Gaddafi army was coming in and taking out the oilfields every time the rebels start pumping oil. They've dismantled the fields quite carefully so the rebels need security down there. Clearly there needs to be tribal support but the Sudanese could make it too risky for Gaddafi's intervention as well."
The last attack on the Mislah and Sarir oilfields took place on June 12, just days before the deployment of Sudanese forces to Kufra.
Rebel spokesmen said they hoped to produce up to 250,000 barrels per day from the oilfields and pump it along a pipeline to the Marsa al-Haringa depot near Tobruk.
Hundreds of Chadian refugees were this week reported to have fled Kufra to the Gaddafi-controlled town of Sebha.
An assessment team from the International Organisation for Migration issued an appeal for 2,000 Chadians fleeing violence across Libya to be provided a safe route home.
"There has been a lot of fighting in the Kufra area and people have decided to make their way to safer stations on the road home," said Qasim Sufi, the IOM team leader in Sirte.
British officials in Benghazi have worked closely with Libyan rebels on resuming oil pumping. Tribal leaders told a British team on May 12 that a brigade of fighters would be formed from Jalu and Kufra to protect oil infrastructure in the south.
Mustafa al-Sagezli, the deputy leader of the oil infrastructure force known as the February 17th Martyrs command, has said that pumping oil north through the pipeline can resume within weeks.
Mazen Ramadan, a financial adviser to the Transistional National Council, yesterday said the opposition was facing a cash crisis that had left it unable to pay for imports or meet salaries for its employees.
It wants its western backers to advance loans against the vast Libyan state funds frozen in US and European bank accounts.
Rebels gained access to a $100 million (£62 million) financing arrangement this week but that money has mainly been spent on medicines and basic needs.
Altogether $1 billion (£620 million) has been pledged to the (TNC) but most of the money has not been handed over.
Without oil sales, the opposition complain their administration is incapable of battling Gaddafi and running the rebel safehavens. "We don't have any money. We are working with a lot of people but it seems like a time-consuming process, and we need the money," Mr Ramadan said. "We proposed a mechanism to perhaps get loans on the frozen assets and then use this mechanism to ensure transparency."
A summit in Istanbul next month will be dominated by legal negotiations on releasing Libya reserves frozen by United Nations sanctions.
Interesting if true, espeically as we are not just talking about some minor border town, but the district capital of the Al Kufrah province. A town several 100 miles from the Sudanese border, in other words the rebels has just effectively lost control with the southern part of Cyrenaica...
edit: ups..forgot link...
Cool. Regional war, here we come. :cool:
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2011, 12:13:09 AM
It's not like there is some kind of huge hurry, and if the rebels don't win in the next 6 weeks they lose or something.
Wow.
Quote from: Caliga on July 02, 2011, 09:36:23 AM
Cool. Regional war, here we come. :cool:
Hmm, I can only find the telegraph reporting it and that article has been out almost 24 hours.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2011, 09:54:19 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 02, 2011, 09:36:23 AM
Cool. Regional war, here we come. :cool:
Hmm, I can only find the telegraph reporting it and that article has been out almost 24 hours.
Yes, all other news sources seems not to have the story, I mean the town may be in the middle of fucking nowhere, but confirming the present of Sudanese troops shouldn't be that hard...
Quote from: Caliga on July 02, 2011, 09:36:23 AM
Cool. Regional war, here we come. :cool:
Doesn't look like it. Gaddafi is too busy with the rebels to start a war with Sudan.
Quote from: grumbler on July 02, 2011, 11:12:35 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 02, 2011, 09:36:23 AM
Cool. Regional war, here we come. :cool:
Doesn't look like it. Gaddafi is too busy with the rebels to start a war with Sudan.
Even if he wasn't, it's not like he had much success in his war against Chad.
Guys named Chad are fags.
Quote from: grumbler on July 02, 2011, 11:12:35 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 02, 2011, 09:36:23 AM
Cool. Regional war, here we come. :cool:
Doesn't look like it. Gaddafi is too busy with the rebels to start a war with Sudan.
It's likely that the Sudanese will support the current regime, Gaddafi's African legion helped the Sudanese government fight South Sudan rebels back in the late 80's and early 90's...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on July 02, 2011, 12:52:57 PM
It's likely that the Sudanese will support the current regime, Gaddafi's African legion helped the Sudanese government fight South Sudan rebels back in the late 80's and early 90's...
Possibly, but the officials quoted in your article clearly feel otherwise (though the Telegraph doesn't appear to follow the journalistic tradition of naming the people it quotes or explaining why it can't). I think I'll go with them.
Turkey recognizes the rebels and will send $200 million in aid.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-07/04/c_13963431.htm
Rebels are making slow but steady progress in the west.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/12/libya-rebels-fighting-near-tripoli
QuoteLibyan rebels make gains against Gaddafi forces in western mountains
Weeks of fierce fighting sees troops consolidate positions less than 100 miles from Tripoli and raise hopes of a breakthrough
* David Smith
*
o David Smith in Qawalish, Libya
o guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 July 2011 19.23 BST
A Libyan woman holds up ammunition in Benghazi
A Libyan woman holds up ammunition while learning how to use a weapon in Benghazi. Photograph: Esam Al-Fetori/Reuters
A flattened lamp-post, two neat rows of bullets and a no-left-turn sign lying on the tarmac road mark the frontline in Libya's western mountains.
Nearby are seven young men, leaning against a battle-scarred building they say was once a guardhouse for Italian soldiers during the second world war. Another sits on a rock, gazing into the desert of no man's land in search of Muammar Gaddafi's forces, said to be little more than a mile away.
The advance in the Nafusa mountains has raised hopes of a significant breakthrough for rebels striving to reach Tripoli and topple Gaddafi. Whereas the battlefields in eastern Libya have reached a virtual stalemate, rebel soldiers have seized 25 miles of this arid, hot, rocky terrain in recent weeks, putting government troops on the defensive.
But it is a hard campaign, an attritional struggle unlikely to meet Nato's timetable for an end to the war, especially with a further slowdown expected for Ramadan next month. The rebels are forced to consolidate their incrementalgains before they can think about moving forward.
The young men guarding the frontline post at Qawalish said Gaddafi's troops tried to retake it two days ago and subject them to a nightly bombardment of Grad rockets, peaking from 11.30pm to 4am.
"We are not scared," said a 21-year-old, who gave his name as Ahmed, half-an-hour after another rocket had thudded into the earth nearby. "We are OK, we just take these things, we get used to it. It's the Gaddafi army who's afraid."
Sitting on a wooden crate of ammunition and wearing a Valencia football shirt, army trousers and trainers, Ahmed said he was risking his life for two reasons: "Democracy. Freedom."
Qawalish fell to the rebels a week ago as, mile by mile, they gradually push from west to east along the mountain ridge. On the road to the frontline the Guardian saw a series of ghost towns which were home to thousands of residents during peacetime. There were wrecked shop fronts and petrol stations, abandoned mosques, concrete buildings blackened by fire, cars blown upside down and tanks and rocket launchers apparently destroyed by Nato air strikes.
Government soldiers who were not killed or captured during these battles appeared to have fled, leaving a trail of abandoned uniforms, boots and weapons still visible in the shade of trees where they once camped. Along roads the rebels used to move in on Qawalish, government forces planted 240 anti-personnel mines and 72 anti-tank mines, say Human Rights Watch.
The road passes through checkpoints that consist of mounds of earth and improvised road blocks: a plastic bin, car seat, tyre, gas canister and a dining chair.
At one a yellow fluorescent jacket was hoisted on a pole, arms outstretched like a scarecrow. At another, a painted sign said: "Welcome to Freedoom," which may or may not have been a misspelling. Revolutionary graffiti and the red, black and green colours of the rebels are everywhere.
The next major prize, about 30 miles away, is Gharyan, a heavily fortified city 60 miles south of Tripoli along a government-controlled road. A previous uprising in Gharyan was brutally crushed but it is believed that rebel sympathisers remain. Capturing it would sever a crucial supply route to the capital and could potentially break the will of Gaddafi's army. Colonel Juma Ibrahim, of the military council in western Libya, said: "Gharyan is the capital of the western mountains. When we finish Gharyan, all the western mountains are under our control. There is no other way to Tripoli."
Asked if his men were capable of taking Tripoli, Ibrahim insisted: "It will be so easy, more than Gharyan. We would have a clear road to Tripoli. I have contact with people around Tripoli, in Zawiya, Zuwarah and Al 'Aziziyah, and they are waiting for us. When we get to Gharyan, we can open many frontlines."
He added: "There will be an uprising in Tripoli. When we are near, they will think they can move."
Speaking in Zintan, a town that spent two months under siege but where the streets now bustle with rebel ordnance, Ibrahim gave an upbeat assessment of when the capital would fall. "Less than one month, inshallah."
But just as in Benghazi and Misrata, this is an ersatz army of former doctors, engineers, students, taxi drivers and teachers, in need of training and weapons. They are highly dependent on hardware captured from Gaddafi's forces, some of which they repair or upgrade with the help of technical manuals they find on the internet.
Al-Fitouri Muftah, a member of the local military council in Kikla, one of the closest towns to the frontline, warned: "We don't have enough weapons and bullets to capture Gharyan. We don't have anything except what we capture from the Gaddafi forces."
He estimated that one in 10 of the rebels' rifles had been passed down by grandparents who fought Italians in the Nafusa mountains. "The old weapons work OK," he said. "They're better than nothing."The 60-year-old, previously a government soldier, called on Nato to do more. "Nato's performance is weak. Nato is necessary for us to take Gharyan. If we don't get that support, it will be very difficult."
As Muftah spoke, the rumble of Nato planes overhead indicated that Gaddafi's troops would leave their positions and run for cover, affording Kikla a respite from enemy fire.
But shortly afterwards, when it appeared that Nato had left, the boom of another ordnance explosion could be heard from a nearby hill.
Muftah, treading on a dusty doormat that bore Gaddafi's face, said rockets still land on Kikla every day, including around 30 on Monday alone. "Gaddafi just wants to destroy the town," he said. "He wants to kill as many rebels as he can."
QuoteBut it is a hard campaign, an attritional struggle unlikely to meet Nato's timetable for an end to the war,
What a load of fucking bullshit. Why do we always make things so fucking much harder for ourselves with arbitrary constraints and limits like "Nato's timetable to end the war". Why does NATO have a timetable? Does supporting rebels have a shelf life measured in just a matter of weeks or months? Does anyone think the other guys place those constraints on themselves - "If we don't win in 8 weeks, fuck it, lets just give up."
Exit strategery.
Quote from: Berkut on July 12, 2011, 07:45:01 PM
QuoteBut it is a hard campaign, an attritional struggle unlikely to meet Nato's timetable for an end to the war,
What a load of fucking bullshit. Why do we always make things so fucking much harder for ourselves with arbitrary constraints and limits like "Nato's timetable to end the war". Why does NATO have a timetable? Does supporting rebels have a shelf life measured in just a matter of weeks or months? Does anyone think the other guys place those constraints on themselves - "If we don't win in 8 weeks, fuck it, lets just give up."
I would guess that most people in NATO countries think that this whole mission is a load of fucking bullshit. You got eight weeks (or whatever it was) to try to save the Libyans by dropping bombs on them. You should be thankful you got that.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 12, 2011, 08:34:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 12, 2011, 07:45:01 PM
QuoteBut it is a hard campaign, an attritional struggle unlikely to meet Nato's timetable for an end to the war,
What a load of fucking bullshit. Why do we always make things so fucking much harder for ourselves with arbitrary constraints and limits like "Nato's timetable to end the war". Why does NATO have a timetable? Does supporting rebels have a shelf life measured in just a matter of weeks or months? Does anyone think the other guys place those constraints on themselves - "If we don't win in 8 weeks, fuck it, lets just give up."
I would guess that most people in NATO countries think that this whole mission is a load of fucking bullshit. You got eight weeks (or whatever it was) to try to save the Libyans by dropping bombs on them. You should be thankful you got that.
If helping people rebel against dictators is a whole load of fucking bullshit, then that is the case today, right now, and NATO should just bail. It is worse than stupid to help a "fucking bullshit" cause for just a few weeks and THEN bail.
If the cause is worthwhile, then it is worthwhile for as long as it takes, within reason. If it is not worthwhile, then any support at all is not just misplaced, but actively stupid.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 12, 2011, 08:34:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 12, 2011, 07:45:01 PM
QuoteBut it is a hard campaign, an attritional struggle unlikely to meet Nato's timetable for an end to the war,
What a load of fucking bullshit. Why do we always make things so fucking much harder for ourselves with arbitrary constraints and limits like "Nato's timetable to end the war". Why does NATO have a timetable? Does supporting rebels have a shelf life measured in just a matter of weeks or months? Does anyone think the other guys place those constraints on themselves - "If we don't win in 8 weeks, fuck it, lets just give up."
I would guess that most people in NATO countries think that this whole mission is a load of fucking bullshit. You got eight weeks (or whatever it was) to try to save the Libyans by dropping bombs on them. You should be thankful you got that.
Euros who are the majority last time I checked were the most enthusiastic about this, with the exception of Germany IIRC.
Quote from: Berkut on July 12, 2011, 08:55:12 PM
If helping people rebel against dictators is a whole load of fucking bullshit, then that is the case today, right now, and NATO should just bail. It is worse than stupid to help a "fucking bullshit" cause for just a few weeks and THEN bail.
If the cause is worthwhile, then it is worthwhile for as long as it takes, within reason. If it is not worthwhile, then any support at all is not just misplaced, but actively stupid.
My opinion has been that support was actively stupid from the start. Congrats on getting your way on another intervention.
I'm sure it is just a coincidence that the two regions we have intervened the most--the middle east and latin america--have a very low opinion of our country.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 13, 2011, 12:00:57 AM
I'm sure it is just a coincidence that the two regions we have intervened the most--the middle east and latin america--have a very low opinion of our country.
How does that account for regions we don't "intervene" with having a very low opinion of our country?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2011, 09:16:19 PM
Euros who are the majority last time I checked were the most enthusiastic about this, with the exception of Germany IIRC.
Have you seen any recent polling to back that up? France may have been enthusiastic, and maybe a few others, but I'd be suprised if that extended to the majority of NATO membership.
Quote from: citizen k on July 13, 2011, 12:03:25 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 13, 2011, 12:00:57 AM
I'm sure it is just a coincidence that the two regions we have intervened the most--the middle east and latin america--have a very low opinion of our country.
How does that account for regions we don't "intervene" with having a very low opinion of our country?
Those two are probably the lowest. Subsaharan Africa has some positive vibes for the US due to the fact we've been engaging there with aid rather than bombs. Europe, Canada, and Australia are our allies. Asia is a big area to generalize, but I'm not aware of much animosity east of pakistan outside of the countries we've fought wars against post WWII.
I would say the country the US has the most contact and constant intervention with is probably Canada and the rest of Europe. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan even all have more US contact and ongoing interaction than the Middle East.
And two of the three main Canadian political parties are dedicated to the downfall of the US.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 08:20:02 AM
And two of the three main Canadian political parties are dedicated to the downfall of the US.
1/3 is about the best one can hope for from Canadians.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 08:20:02 AM
And two of the three main Canadian political parties are dedicated to the downfall of the US.
How is the Conservative Party not dedicated to the downfall of the US?
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 08:24:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 08:20:02 AM
And two of the three main Canadian political parties are dedicated to the downfall of the US.
How is the Conservative Party not dedicated to the downfall of the US?
Because it isn't.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 08:31:57 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 08:24:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 08:20:02 AM
And two of the three main Canadian political parties are dedicated to the downfall of the US.
How is the Conservative Party not dedicated to the downfall of the US?
Because it isn't.
It seems it is at the same extent then the NDP or the Liberals. BQ isn't dedicated to the downfall of the US but the downfall of Canada.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 08:33:29 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 08:31:57 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 08:24:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 08:20:02 AM
And two of the three main Canadian political parties are dedicated to the downfall of the US.
How is the Conservative Party not dedicated to the downfall of the US?
Because it isn't.
It seems it is at the same extent then the NDP or the Liberals. BQ isn't dedicated to the downfall of the US but the downfall of Canada.
The BQ isn't a major party. The NDP is dedicated to the downfall of Western Civilization, which means the US. The Liberals just hate the US because they are strong (although maybe now that they aren't anymore, the Liberals might feel differently).
And the Cons don't hate the US because?
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 08:48:03 AM
And the Cons don't hate the US because?
Common goals.
Lets hope they're right.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gaddafi-forces-struggling-us-reports-say/2011/07/12/gIQA0sSQBI_story.html
QuoteNew U.S. intelligence assessments conclude that government forces, already beset with morale problems and a steady stream of defections, are now hard-pressed to find fuel for military vehicles after rebel troops shut down a key pipeline. If current trends continue, loyalists troops will run out of fuel by summer's end, and the Gaddafi government will face a worsening cash and credit shortage because of international sanctions, the reports say.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 10:18:25 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 08:48:03 AM
And the Cons don't hate the US because?
Common goals.
Which if the Tea baggers are any indication, the total destruction of Western Civilization.
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2011, 07:39:24 AM
I would say the country the US has the most contact and constant intervention with is probably Canada and the rest of Europe. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan even all have more US contact and ongoing interaction than the Middle East.
Yeah, the types of intervention in Canada is exactly what I was referring to. :rolleyes: NAFTA != dropping bombs on people to change their government.
Fuck you, it's the same thing!
No Blood for Free Trade!
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2011, 09:58:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2011, 07:39:24 AM
I would say the country the US has the most contact and constant intervention with is probably Canada and the rest of Europe. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan even all have more US contact and ongoing interaction than the Middle East.
Yeah, the types of intervention in Canada is exactly what I was referring to. :rolleyes: NAFTA != dropping bombs on people to change their government.
<whoosh>
A recent poll in Arabic countries finds that they hate our policies and think we are the biggest source of instability in the region. We are less popular than when Bush left office.
http://www.aaiusa.org/reports/arab-attitutes-2011
The poll didn't include Libya, probably because there is a war going on there.
Berkut should note that even in Egypt that had a relatively peaceful revolution, most people are not taking the view it has made the country better off--a plurality are believe that only time will tell. Getting rid of a dictator does not necessarily improve things, and even in Egypt, that on a per capita basis is a fraction as wealthy as Libya and didn't go through a civil war, they aren't overwhelmed with optimism.
You mean after something like a revolution, "only time will tell" if everyone is going to turn out swell?
Crap, I had no idea! I thought it was guaranteed roses and sunshine! I am so disillusioned!
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 11:09:23 AM
You mean after something like a revolution, "only time will tell" if everyone is going to turn out swell?
Crap, I had no idea! I thought it was guaranteed roses and sunshine! I am so disillusioned!
Maybe we should bomb Cairo. Adding American bombs to Libya seemed to work so well, that may be the missing ingredient to getting their revolution to work.
Did you read the poll? Really almost every response is a great reason to militarily disengage in the region, but to highlight one:
"On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being very much and 5 being not at all, how much of an obstacle are each of the following to peace and stability in the Middle East:"
In 3 of the 6 countries, "U.S. interference in the Arab world" had the highest percentage of "very much" responses. In 2 others, it was #2, behind "Continuing
occupation of Palestinian lands" (though in Jordan it still got 80% of "very much" responses). Saudi Arabia was the remaining country, where the US response only got a 59% "very much" response (they are most worried about Iran).
"Lack of democracy" was also an option. It was in 3 or worse in every country except for Lebanon (where it was 2nd behind the US option).
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2011, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 11:09:23 AM
You mean after something like a revolution, "only time will tell" if everyone is going to turn out swell?
Crap, I had no idea! I thought it was guaranteed roses and sunshine! I am so disillusioned!
Maybe we should bomb Cairo. Adding American bombs to Libya seemed to work so well, that may be the missing ingredient to getting their revolution to work.
The revolt in Lbya does seem to be working though. I don't think we should take much credit for it though.
Quote
Did you read the poll? Really almost every response is a great reason to militarily disengage in the region, but to highlight one:
No, the fact that a lot of uneducated people believe things that are not true is a rather poor reason to disengage, actually.
There are good reasons - Joe Arab and his conspiracy theories are not one of them though. Since when does US foreign policy base itself on polls of people of other countries, especially ones as well known to be undereducated and generally nutty as the Middle East?
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 14, 2011, 06:50:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 10:18:25 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 08:48:03 AM
And the Cons don't hate the US because?
Common goals.
Which if the Tea baggers are any indication, the total destruction of Western Civilization.
All Tea Party lunatics are Americans, but not all Americans are Tea Party lunatics. Logic 101.
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:25:32 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 14, 2011, 06:50:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 10:18:25 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 08:48:03 AM
And the Cons don't hate the US because?
Common goals.
Which if the Tea baggers are any indication, the total destruction of Western Civilization.
All Tea Party lunatics are Americans, but not all Americans are Tea Party lunatics. Logic 101.
Same logics apply to the NDP voters. I voted NDP. I love America.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 14, 2011, 12:33:29 PM
Same logics apply to the NDP voters. I voted NDP. I love America.
I love Quebec to man :hug:
And who wouldn't love those sexy Quebec ladies?
Is this still going on?
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 12:06:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2011, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 11:09:23 AM
You mean after something like a revolution, "only time will tell" if everyone is going to turn out swell?
Crap, I had no idea! I thought it was guaranteed roses and sunshine! I am so disillusioned!
Maybe we should bomb Cairo. Adding American bombs to Libya seemed to work so well, that may be the missing ingredient to getting their revolution to work.
The revolt in Lbya does seem to be working though. I don't think we should take much credit for it though.
Quote
Did you read the poll? Really almost every response is a great reason to militarily disengage in the region, but to highlight one:
No, the fact that a lot of uneducated people believe things that are not true is a rather poor reason to disengage, actually.
There are good reasons - Joe Arab and his conspiracy theories are not one of them though. Since when does US foreign policy base itself on polls of people of other countries, especially ones as well known to be undereducated and generally nutty as the Middle East?
We have limited interests in parts of the region and the people overwhelmingly see our impact negatively and want us to leave. There are educated and non crazy people in the region too, and I would think that the overwhelming nature of the negative opinion of the US would cause you to consider they don't appreciate us there either. Plus they might have a better appreciation of the situation in the middle east than you do.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 01:08:22 PM
Is this still going on?
Yes, apparently the rebels are clinging on to Misrata and making "good progress" towards Tripoli. Gadaffi is expected to fold at any moment.
You know, just like it was back in February.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2011, 01:17:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 12:06:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2011, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 11:09:23 AM
You mean after something like a revolution, "only time will tell" if everyone is going to turn out swell?
Crap, I had no idea! I thought it was guaranteed roses and sunshine! I am so disillusioned!
Maybe we should bomb Cairo. Adding American bombs to Libya seemed to work so well, that may be the missing ingredient to getting their revolution to work.
The revolt in Lbya does seem to be working though. I don't think we should take much credit for it though.
Quote
Did you read the poll? Really almost every response is a great reason to militarily disengage in the region, but to highlight one:
No, the fact that a lot of uneducated people believe things that are not true is a rather poor reason to disengage, actually.
There are good reasons - Joe Arab and his conspiracy theories are not one of them though. Since when does US foreign policy base itself on polls of people of other countries, especially ones as well known to be undereducated and generally nutty as the Middle East?
We have limited interests in parts of the region and the people overwhelmingly see our impact negatively and want us to leave. There are educated and non crazy people in the region too, and I would think that the overwhelming nature of the negative opinion of the US would cause you to consider they don't appreciate us there either. Plus they might have a better appreciation of the situation in the middle east than you do.
They might - but since I am not the one who has to make a decision and my opinion is not limited to only judging my own appreciation and the appreciation of random poll takers (I wonder what a poll of rebels fighting in Libya would say about their appreciation for Western help?), then it hardly seems relevant. Once can, for example, get all kinds of informed and considered viewpoints about the ME without resorting to dubious opinion polls designed to prove how much everyone hates the nasty Americans.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2011, 01:46:16 PM
Yes, apparently the rebels are clinging on to Misrata and making "good progress" towards Tripoli. Gadaffi is expected to fold at any moment.
You know, just like it was back in February.
Dammit. This is the slowest advance in a civil war since McClellan's Peninsula Campaign.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 02:05:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2011, 01:46:16 PM
Yes, apparently the rebels are clinging on to Misrata and making "good progress" towards Tripoli. Gadaffi is expected to fold at any moment.
You know, just like it was back in February.
Dammit. This is the slowest advance in a civil war since McClellan's Peninsula Campaign.
Little Mac was faster.
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 01:56:23 PM
They might - but since I am not the one who has to make a decision and my opinion is not limited to only judging my own appreciation and the appreciation of random poll takers (I wonder what a poll of rebels fighting in Libya would say about their appreciation for Western help?), then it hardly seems relevant. Once can, for example, get all kinds of informed and considered viewpoints about the ME without resorting to dubious opinion polls designed to prove how much everyone hates the nasty Americans.
There are profoundly negative attitudes to the US's role in the Arabic world from all levels in their society. Do you disagree with this? Do you have any reason to dispute the outcomes of the polling I cited?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2011, 02:12:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 01:56:23 PM
They might - but since I am not the one who has to make a decision and my opinion is not limited to only judging my own appreciation and the appreciation of random poll takers (I wonder what a poll of rebels fighting in Libya would say about their appreciation for Western help?), then it hardly seems relevant. Once can, for example, get all kinds of informed and considered viewpoints about the ME without resorting to dubious opinion polls designed to prove how much everyone hates the nasty Americans.
There are profoundly negative attitudes to the US's role in the Arabic world from all levels in their society. Do you disagree with this? Do you have any reason to dispute the outcomes of the polling I cited?
If you invade it will be like France 1944. Do you disagree with this?
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 02:19:33 PM
If you invade it will be like France 1944. Do you disagree with this?
Yes. We had a compelling strategic national interest to invade France in 1944.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2011, 02:12:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 01:56:23 PM
They might - but since I am not the one who has to make a decision and my opinion is not limited to only judging my own appreciation and the appreciation of random poll takers (I wonder what a poll of rebels fighting in Libya would say about their appreciation for Western help?), then it hardly seems relevant. Once can, for example, get all kinds of informed and considered viewpoints about the ME without resorting to dubious opinion polls designed to prove how much everyone hates the nasty Americans.
There are profoundly negative attitudes to the US's role in the Arabic world from all levels in their society.
Lets see....lets try this:
"There are profoundly negative attitudes to the US's role in the Western world from all levels of Western society. "
"There are profoundly negative attitudes to the US's role in the Indian sub-continent from all levels of Indian society. "
"There are profoundly negative attitudes to the US's role in Europe from all levels of European society. "
Do you disagree with any of these statements?
Quote
Do you disagree with this? Do you have any reason to dispute the outcomes of the polling I cited?
I have reason to not give it much weight, yes. More to the point, my views on what the US should or should not do in regards to foreign policy have very little to do with what random uneducated people think about the US and our evil ways. *Especially* societies as screwed up as the Middle East.
You don't get to cite polls of the general population as evidence for how much we are hated, then turn around and claim they represent some smaller, more informed portion as well, btw. Even if we assume the poll is not complete BS, why would you assume the results from the general population would be reflected in some very small subset of that population?
More to the point...why would you give so much weight to popularity polls to begin with, as opposed to all the other data and viewpoints out there? Seriously, the viewpoints of the masses when it comes to crap like "Lets talk about how terrible the US is and how they are the Great Satan..." should not even carry any weight with you, much less me.
I think there are situations where it's pointless to try & help out a bunch of ingrates. This seems to be one of them.
QuoteDo you disagree with any of these statements?
Yes, all three. There are subsets of Indian and European society that are pro US. The majority of Europeans overall, I think.
QuoteI have reason to not give it much weight, yes. More to the point, my views on what the US should or should not do in regards to foreign policy have very little to do with what random uneducated people think about the US and our evil ways. *Especially* societies as screwed up as the Middle East.
You don't get to cite polls of the general population as evidence for how much we are hated, then turn around and claim they represent some smaller, more informed portion as well, btw. Even if we assume the poll is not complete BS, why would you assume the results from the general population would be reflected in some very small subset of that population?
The approval rating for the US in the poll is 5%, less than the 8% when Bush left office. You can delude yourself into pretending that the educated portion of society may be with us, but only the uneducated masses fail to see the wisdom of our policies. At a certain point the numbers become so bad I feel comfortable to assume that they reflect a general trend in arabic society.
Part of the reason that I find your reasoning to be denial of the worst order is I've worked with Egyptians overseas--who have the common characteristic of being educated, fluent in english, and working for an american company. If there is a demographic that is pro US in Egypt it is likely them, and to a person (to the extent we've discussed politics, which I try to avoid) they are generally opposed to the US in the region. The polling is overwhelmingly in one direction (not just this poll, but polls in general), and it matches at least my experience (I'd be interested if anyone has a different experience).
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 02:49:18 PM
More to the point...why would you give so much weight to popularity polls to begin with, as opposed to all the other data and viewpoints out there? Seriously, the viewpoints of the masses when it comes to crap like "Lets talk about how terrible the US is and how they are the Great Satan..." should not even carry any weight with you, much less me.
Because this is ostensibly a humanitarian mission. We don't have real strategic interests in Libya. If the arabic world doesn't think we help matters there and is opposed to us being there, maybe we just shouldn't be there. Bombing campaigns in arabic countries with humanitarian motives when the arabic world thinks we are making the region more unstable and wants us to leave seems foolish.
If we had strategic interests, it would be different. If Iranian tanks start rolling into Saudi Arabia, my point of view is we need to be involved, regardless of opinion.
And again, that polling is one variable, and a pretty unimportant one. There is no denial - it simply does not matter to me. The fact that Middle Eastern society has fucked up nutbar views of America has very little weight on my evaluation of US foreign policy goals.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2011, 03:19:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 02:49:18 PM
More to the point...why would you give so much weight to popularity polls to begin with, as opposed to all the other data and viewpoints out there? Seriously, the viewpoints of the masses when it comes to crap like "Lets talk about how terrible the US is and how they are the Great Satan..." should not even carry any weight with you, much less me.
Because this is ostensibly a humanitarian mission.
So perhaps we should give more weight to the opinions of those we are trying to help than those who wish us ill. Just a thought.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2011, 03:13:48 PM
QuoteDo you disagree with any of these statements?
Yes, all three. There are subsets of Indian and European society that are pro US. The majority of Europeans overall, I think.
That isn't what my statements said - it said there were elements at all levels, which is most certainly true.
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 03:20:39 PM
The fact that Middle Eastern society has fucked up nutbar views of America has very little weight on my evaluation of US foreign policy goals.
Considering we are supposedly there to stop anti-American violence that does seem to be a strange view.
But maybe there are some other goals you are referring to.
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 03:22:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2011, 03:13:48 PM
QuoteDo you disagree with any of these statements?
Yes, all three. There are subsets of Indian and European society that are pro US. The majority of Europeans overall, I think.
That isn't what my statements said - it said there were elements at all levels, which is most certainly true.
If it was meant to mimic my statement, my statement was referring to majority sentiment--not a couple of guys. Ie, a majority of the rich, the poor, the elderly, the young, single, married, etc.
There are handfuls of people that believe anything.
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 03:21:37 PM
So perhaps we should give more weight to the opinions of those we are trying to help than those who wish us ill. Just a thought.
So how much weight do we give to our own opinions? :P
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2011/support_for_military_action_in_libya_is_down_to_24
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 03:26:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 03:20:39 PM
The fact that Middle Eastern society has fucked up nutbar views of America has very little weight on my evaluation of US foreign policy goals.
Considering we are supposedly there to stop anti-American violence that does seem to be a strange view.
But maybe there are some other goals you are referring to.
If I thought running away would somehow make the nutbar conspiracy theory whackos decide to ignore the US since we would presumably no longer be such a barrier to peace, justice, equality, and prosperity, I might actually consider their views.
But it would not make a single bit of difference in how they view the US. It's not like the view that the US and our supposed "interference" is the primary source of the Middle Easts problems is founded on anything rational or reasoned anyway.Well, except perhaps insofar as we have interfered with their desire to genocide the Jews, and I am ok with being responsible for that part.
Also, I don't much care for the idea of validating their crazy by giving in to their idiotic demands, when the truth of the matter is that the US does NOT interfere in the Middle East in general, and certainly not enough to bear any great responsibility for their screwed up societies.
Lastly, if in fact this was the opinion of the people we are actually trying to help, it would carry a lot more weight. Random arabs saying "fuck the Libyans, we don't care about them..." doesn't mean much to me. And I bet most if you couched the question in those terms ("Do you think the West should support the rebels against Qadafi") would be a lot more positive anyway.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2011, 03:28:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 03:21:37 PM
So perhaps we should give more weight to the opinions of those we are trying to help than those who wish us ill. Just a thought.
So how much weight do we give to our own opinions? :P
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2011/support_for_military_action_in_libya_is_down_to_24 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2011/support_for_military_action_in_libya_is_down_to_24)
Quite a lot, of course.
Errh, depending on what you mean. That doesn't mean anything to my own opinion about why we should support the rebels, I do think it means a lot (and should mean a lot) to those who actually make the decisions.
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Errh, depending on what you mean. That doesn't mean anything to my own opinion about why we should support the rebels,
It should factor into what you think our
policy needs to be.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2011, 01:46:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 01:08:22 PM
Is this still going on?
Yes, apparently the rebels are clinging on to Misrata and making "good progress" towards Tripoli. Gadaffi is expected to fold at any moment.
You know, just like it was back in February.
Clinging? :huh:
Misrata is no longer in any danger of falling.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 14, 2011, 05:21:15 PM
Clinging? :huh:
Misrata is no longer in any danger of falling.
IIRC it was getting shelled a few days ago. With rebels like these guys, nothing is totally secure.
I believe this intervention will end up making the US and Europe more hated among most Libyans, regardless of how eager they are for Western help now.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2011, 01:46:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 01:08:22 PM
Is this still going on?
Yes, apparently the rebels are clinging on to Misrata and making "good progress" towards Tripoli. Gadaffi is expected to fold at any moment.
You know, just like it was back in February.
G. R. R. Martin makes quicker progress then these guys.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on July 14, 2011, 07:15:10 PM
I believe this intervention will end up making the US and Europe more hated among most Libyans, regardless of how eager they are for Western help now.
:yes:
We should have either intervened hardcore, or not intervened at all. As usual, the politicians want to do everything the half-committed, half-assed way which is worse than doing nothing at all.
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 03:30:01 PM
Also, I don't much care for the idea of validating their crazy by giving in to their idiotic demands, when the truth of the matter is that the US does NOT interfere in the Middle East in general, and certainly not enough to bear any great responsibility for their screwed up societies.
To be fair, when you say interfere you may mean militarily, but I think a rundown of the countries in the near east/middle east/arabic north africa would be illuminating:
Lebanon: Direct military involvement in the not too distant past, indirect in the past few years through our support of Israel.
Israel: Obvious--we prop them up militarily and with aid.
Syria: Under US sanctions and under threat of attack.
Jordan: We send them a ton of aid, aiding their non democratic government. They also have a palestinian problem related to Israel.
Saudi Arabia: We prop them up.
Yemen: We are bombing them.
Oman: I don't know.
Bahrain: We have a naval base/military presence.
Qatar: I don't know.
UAE: I don't know.
Kuwait: They owe their existance to us, and we keep a large military presence there.
Iraq: We've been periodically bombing, invading, occupying them off and on for the past 20 years.
Egypt: We've been sending their non democratic government a ton of aid since the 70s.
Libya: We are bombing them (not for the first time).
Tunisia: I don't know.
Algeria: As far as I know, nothing! We leave messing up this country to the French. I'm not sure Algeria is Arabic though. :(
Quote from: Caliga on July 14, 2011, 07:43:25 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on July 14, 2011, 07:15:10 PM
I believe this intervention will end up making the US and Europe more hated among most Libyans, regardless of how eager they are for Western help now.
:yes:
We should have either intervened hardcore, or not intervened at all. As usual, the politicians want to do everything the half-committed, half-assed way which is worse than doing nothing at all.
Although I've been strongly against military involvement, I agree. This is the worst alternative. It seems likely that Obama tried to find a compromise solution when he needed to pick one side or the other.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2011, 08:02:35 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 14, 2011, 07:43:25 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on July 14, 2011, 07:15:10 PM
I believe this intervention will end up making the US and Europe more hated among most Libyans, regardless of how eager they are for Western help now.
:yes:
We should have either intervened hardcore, or not intervened at all. As usual, the politicians want to do everything the half-committed, half-assed way which is worse than doing nothing at all.
Although I've been strongly against military involvement, I agree. This is the worst alternative. It seems likely that Obama tried to find a compromise solution when he needed to pick one side or the other.
Also agree. It was a stupid idea, but if you are going to go, you go all out.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2011, 04:29:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Errh, depending on what you mean. That doesn't mean anything to my own opinion about why we should support the rebels,
It should factor into what you think our policy needs to be.
It does.
Just saw on CNN that the US has recognized the Whatever Whatever Council as the legitimate government of Libya. :ph34r:
Quote
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/07/15/libya.us.recognition/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
U.S. recognizes Libyan rebel
Istanbul (CNN) -- The United States will now recognize the main opposition group in Libya "as the legitimate governing authority" in a country that Moammar Gadhafi has long ruled with an iron first, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday.
U.S. recognition of the Transitional National Council is a major diplomatic development that could give the rebels access to Libyan regime assets that have been frozen by the United States.
Clinton announced the change in Istanbul, Turkey, at meeting of the Libya Contact Group, the alliance of nations working to deal with the Libyan crisis. Applause rippled through the audience.
Clinton said the Transitional National Council "continues to gain legitimacy as the representative of the Libyan people" and conducts "high-level diplomacy with governments worldwide."
Libya to defend oil with 'blood'
Battle for Qawalish, Libya
France will keep troops in Libya
RELATED TOPICS
Libyan Conflict
Libyan Politics
Human Rights Watch
"So I am announcing today that, until an interim authority is in place, the United States will recognize the TNC as the legitimate governing authority for Libya, and we will deal with it on that basis."
The United States had previously stopped short of giving this recognition to the council, but Clinton said that the body, based in Benghazi, Libya, "has offered important assurances today."
They include "the promise to pursue a process of democratic reform that is inclusive both geographically and politically, to uphold Libya's international obligations, and to disburse funds in a transparent manner to address the humanitarian and other needs of the Libyan people."
The United States "appreciates these assurances from the TNC, which reinforce our confidence that it is the appropriate interlocutor for us in dealing with Libya's present and addressing Libya's future."
The Libyan uprising began in February and opposition forces have been fighting to oust Gadhafi and his regime.
NATO forces have been operating under a U.N. mandate in Libya to protect people from aggression by Gadhafi forces.
Clinton said the United States "will help the TNC sustain its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, and national unity of Libya, and we will look to it to remain steadfast in its commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms."
"In contrast, the United States views the Gadhafi regime as no longer having any legitimate authority in Libya," she said.
Diplomatic efforts have been afoot to end the crisis, and Clinton said Libyans are "looking past Gadhafi."
"They know, as we all know, that it is no longer a question of whether Gadhafi will leave power, but when."
Clinton said the coalition will continue to target Gadhafi's command and control if he keeps threatening the citizenry.
"The terms of a cease-fire are clear. Gadhafi must stop attacks or the threat of attacks, remove his troops from all of the places they have forcibly entered, and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance."
"The terms of a political process that will produce a cease-fire and pave the way to a democratic Libya are also clear. It must involve Gadhafi's departure and an inclusive effort to build a new constitutional framework that redeems the democratic aspirations of all the Libyan people."
As for the recognition step, a senior State Department official who briefed reporters on the decision reiterated that the TNC's political and economic assurances "turned the tide" in their favor.
The United States wanted "to send a clear signal to Gadhafi" that the "world is looking to a future without him," and "we felt this step today makes that loud and clear," the official said.
A final statement issued by the Contact Group raised a range of points, including an agreement by the participants "to deal" with the NTC "as the legitimate governing authority" in the country "until an interim authority is in place." It also welcomed monetary pledges and encouraged financial help.
"Noting that the unfolding situation in Libya since mid-February has disrupted the operations of foreign companies and contractors, the Contact Group welcomed the commitment of the NTC to open up Libya to foreign investment as soon as possible and its commitment to honor any existing legal contracts signed under the Gadhafi regime," it said.
It also cited "the need for establishment of a genuine cease-fire and provision of safe humanitarian access remain as urgent as ever."
The group "urged all relevant parties to explore ways and means of paving the way for the formation of an interim government to ensure a smooth and peaceful transition of power with the widest popular support possible," it said.
Surprised it took us this long.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 16, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
Surprised it took us this long.
I"m not. Obama has been wishy-washy on the damn thing. I've very disappointed in him.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2011, 07:59:56 PM
Lebanon: Direct military involvement in the not too distant past, indirect in the past few years through our support of Israel.
Israel: Obvious--we prop them up militarily and with aid.
Syria: Under US sanctions and under threat of attack.
Jordan: We send them a ton of aid, aiding their non democratic government. They also have a palestinian problem related to Israel.
Saudi Arabia: We prop them up.
Yemen: We are bombing them.
Bahrain: We have a naval base/military presence.
Kuwait: They owe their existance to us, and we keep a large military presence there.
Iraq: We've been periodically bombing, invading, occupying them off and on for the past 20 years.
Egypt: We've been sending their non democratic government a ton of aid since the 70s.
Libya: We are bombing them (not for the first time).
Algeria: As far as I know, nothing! We leave messing up this country to the French. I'm not sure Algeria is Arabic though. :(
All fair.
QuoteOman: I don't know.
Probably Britain's best friend in the region. But still very close to the US.
QuoteQatar: I don't know.
UAE: I don't know.
Like Oman reasonably close because of the whole Persian Gulf/Iran thing. Not so friendly with Qatar though.
QuoteTunisia: I don't know.
Me neither. I'd guess the same as Algeria.
Also don't forget Morocco whose secret police has been used to torture renditioned terrorist suspects, probably with the acquiesence of British and American intelligence officers. And what happens in Morocco's prisons are the sort of things even John Yoo would consider torture.
The idea that the US "presence" in all those examples is what is resulting in the lack of peace and prosperity in those places is idiotic. And the idea that we should validate that idiocy by crawling away is even more idiotic.
The US has bases in England. I guess that means, under that exact same standard, we are "interfering" in the UK as well, right? Because now the bar for "interference" is apparently that low?
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2011, 04:01:58 PM
The idea that the US "presence" in all those examples is what is resulting in the lack of peace and prosperity in those places is idiotic. And the idea that we should validate that idiocy by crawling away is even more idiotic.
The US has bases in England. I guess that means, under that exact same standard, we are "interfering" in the UK as well, right? Because now the bar for "interference" is apparently that low?
The bar for interference isn't low: the only country that is mentioned for is Bahrain (aside from Kuwait), which is a very small country with thousands of US personnel. It isn't a trivial presence.
As for the UK, if they wanted us to leave, then yes I agree that we should go. If we paid QE2 a bunch of money and she said she wanted us to stay, even though there was widespread opposition to us, then yes, I think we would be interfering. Especially if there was the beginning of an uprising there that was put down by a foreign power with funds and equipment we supplied.
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2011, 04:01:58 PM
The idea that the US "presence" in all those examples is what is resulting in the lack of peace and prosperity in those places is idiotic. And the idea that we should validate that idiocy by crawling away is even more idiotic.
The US has bases in England. I guess that means, under that exact same standard, we are "interfering" in the UK as well, right? Because now the bar for "interference" is apparently that low?
For most Muslims and Arabs, the bar really is that low. Regardless of whether their greivances are legitimate or not, I don't think it makes much sense to go out of your way to help people who will only hate you more for it.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2011, 04:35:35 PM
Especially if there was the beginning of an uprising there that was put down by a foreign power with funds and equipment we supplied.
Eh, we supply funds to the Saudis? When did that start?
Also, if I'm not mistaken they buy their APCs from the Brits. :ph34r:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2011, 04:50:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2011, 04:35:35 PM
Especially if there was the beginning of an uprising there that was put down by a foreign power with funds and equipment we supplied.
Eh, we supply funds to the Saudis? When did that start?
Also, if I'm not mistaken they buy their APCs from the Brits. :ph34r:
Every time you fill up with gas. :P
Maybe I got a bit carried away.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2011, 04:50:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2011, 04:35:35 PM
Especially if there was the beginning of an uprising there that was put down by a foreign power with funds and equipment we supplied.
Eh, we supply funds to the Saudis? When did that start?
Don't be saucy, Bearnaise. You know what he means.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/19/italy-blocks-investigation-arms-cache (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/19/italy-blocks-investigation-arms-cache)
QuoteItalian government blocks investigation into missing arms cache
Speculation that consignment of weapons removed from military depot in Mediterranean was secretly supplied to Libya
John Hooper in Rome
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 July 2011 18.09 BST
The Italian government has blocked an investigation into the whereabouts of a massive consignment of weapons removed from a military depot in the Mediterranean, amid speculation that the cargo was secretly supplied to Libya.
The weapons were from a consignment that included 30,000 Kalashnikov AK-47 automatic rifles, 32m rounds of ammunition, 5,000 Katyusha rockets, 400 Fagot wire-guided anti-tank missiles and some 11,000 other anti-tank weapons.
They were transferred from a store on the island of Santo Stefano, off the north coast of Sardinia, and transported to the mainland where they were loaded onto army trucks , a source familiar with the operation told the Guardian. But what happened to them after that is a mystery – and now a secret.
The arms were said to have been moved about a month after Silvio Berlusconi radically shifted his stance on Libya. Firmly allied to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi until the outbreak of hostilities, he was initially reluctant to do more than provide base facilities for France and Britain.
But on 26 April, after a telephone conversation with Barack Obama, he announced that Italian planes would join the air strikes on Libya in an attempt to break the deadlock on the ground. His announcement wrong-footed his coalition allies in the Northern League, who have repeatedly deplored Italy's subsequent involvement.
A prosecutor in the town of Tempio Pausania opened an investigation into the destination of the weapons but his inquiries were blocked by an order from the prime minister's office warning that the affair was covered by official secrecy, according to reports in two daily newspapers.
The prime minister's office was unable immediately to confirm or deny the report and the prosecutor's office in Tempio Pausania could not be reached for comment.
The weapons are understood to have been seized on board a ship intercepted by British and Italian warships at the mouth of the Adriatic during the Balkan wars of the 1990s. It emerged in subsequent court proceedings that the 19,400-ton Jadran Express was carrying enough weaponry to equip an army.
The ship, with a cargo of 47 containers supposedly packed with Egyptian cotton, was bound for the Croatian port of Rijeka when it was forced off course in an operation involving the British and Ukrainian intelligence services. Italian judges ordered the arms to be destroyed.
But they were instead moved to a munitions dump on Santo Stefano from where that the arms were reportedly removed between 18 and 20 May.
Not the least mystifying aspect of the operation is that the Italian navy used commercial ferries to transport the weapons.
:hmm:
Looks like things are continuing to go in the Rebel's favor. I think the war will be over in a couple of months.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/21/libya-middleeast
Quote
Libyan rebels in Zlitan capture key government commander
General Abdul Nabih Zayid arrested during rebel advance and questioned over Misrata civilian killings, says opposition
* Chris Stephen in Misrata
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 14.26 BST
Libyan rebels claimed to have made significant advances against Muammar Gaddafi's forces on Thursday amid signs that the regime is feeling the strain of offensives backed by Nato air power.
Rebels in the western city of Misrata said they had captured the chief of operations of government forces in Zlitan on the first day of their attack.
General Abdul Nabih Zayid was caught late on Wednesday after advancing fighters overran his command post at Souk Talat, a small village on the outskirts of Zlitan, opposition commanders said.
"We have him in custody. He is being well looked after," said Mohamed Frefr, in charge of detainees for the rebels. "After three days talking with him, we will hand him to the military prison."
Growing confidence was also expressed by rebel officials from Misrata, who met Nicholas Sarkozy, the French president, and reportedly told him that with help, they could be in Tripoli within days.
In apparent evidence of the toll taken by the continuing fighting, Libyan state TV on Thursday broadcast an appeal for volunteers to join the army. An announcer told viewers there were vacancies in all units, including special forces, and that soldiers would be well paid.
Libyans using the state-run cellphone network said they had been receiving text messages calling on them to fight in the western mountains, the frontline closest to Tripoli. "The clock of action has struck. The time for cleansing has come," one of the messages said.
State TV also showed what it said were new pictures from Zlitan and the oil town of Brega in an apparent attempt to demonstrate that they were still in the regime's hands. In Zlitan, dozens of Gaddafi supporters were shown chanting slogans.
Libyan opposition sources claimed that Abdullah Senussi, Gaddafi's intelligence chief and chief enforcer, had been killed in an attack on regime figures in Tripoli. But there was no confirmation of that.
In Zlitan rebels said the captured general was being interviewed by intelligence officers and had been supplied with insulin because he has diabetes.
A member of the Misrata military council, Hassan Duwa, said the general was captured as rebel units advanced towards Zlitan late on Wednesday. "He was in his house. Eleven guys surrounded the house."
Zayid's capture is regarded as a major feather in the cap for rebel forces. The general gained notoriety among rebels when he helped co-ordinate the deployment of tanks on the streets of Misrata in March, triggering two months of street fighting that saw much of the city wrecked and hundreds killed.
Misrata's war crimes investigators say the general, who was the operations officer at the city garrison before the war, is a "person of interest" for his role in what they say were widespread and systematic attacks against civilians.
Misrata's Human Rights Activists Association, made up of volunteer Libyan lawyers, is assembling evidence it hopes can later be used by the international criminal court. Khalid Alwafi, one of its lawyers, said: "For sure we need to interview him. There are lots of questions that need answers from him."
Rebel units say they are now deploying on the outskirts of Zlitan. The offensive has been launched simultaneously with a push by forces on the eastern front to capture the key oil town of Brega.
Both offensives have been supported by heavy Nato air strikes over the past few days, with alliance aircraft flying over Misrata on Wednesday night. Loud explosions could be heard from behind the frontline. Several rebel commanders in Misrata have told the Guardian in recent days that pro-Gaddafi forces are running short of manpower.
The rebel National Transitional Council, based in Benghazi, is keen to demonstrate that it can break a six-week deadlock and gain the initiative in the runup to Ramadan, which begins on August 1.
The rebels have meanwhile asked France to supply extra weapons to help them overrun Tripoli. Military leaders from Misrata made the request in Paris on Wednesday to French president Nicolas Sarkozy. "With a little bit of help, we will be in Tripoli very soon. Very soon means days," Suleiman Fortia told reporters.
The talks were also attended by the French writer and supporter of the rebels, Bernard-Henri Levy, who said the rebels told Sarkozy that they can seize Tripoli by attacking from Misrata and from rebel-held mountainous territory to the south.
France is playing a leading role in the Nato co-ordinated strikes against Gaddafi's military assets and was the first outside state to formally recognise the rebels' Transitional National Council.
Two months?
Who has that kind of time! If the rebels cannot wrap this up by next Friday, I say we start bombing them instead.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2011, 11:48:42 PM
Two months?
Who has that kind of time! If the rebels cannot wrap this up by next Friday, I say we start bombing them instead.
I like this plan. Or perhaps better yet, we just bomb indiscriminately. No matter who wins they'll likely be assholes who hate us for some reason, if we bomb them all we won't have to wrack our brains trying to figure out why any one group is shouting "Death to America". It would at least give them reasons we could understand. Osama Bin Ladin hated us because we defended his country in a war. That doesn't really make much sense. If we kill the next Osama's family, at least we'll understand where he's coming from. In the long run, it'll make diplomacy easier. So bombs away.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2011, 11:48:42 PM
Two months?
Who has that kind of time! If the rebels cannot wrap this up by next Friday, I say we start bombing them instead.
You joke, but I think that's a great plan.
"Dear Rebels: we will start bombing your current positions, as well as to their rear, in 48 hours. We should very much like to suggest that, by then, you have advanced your lines somewhat. Sincerely, NATO"
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2011, 12:06:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2011, 11:48:42 PM
Two months?
Who has that kind of time! If the rebels cannot wrap this up by next Friday, I say we start bombing them instead.
I like this plan. Or perhaps better yet, we just bomb indiscriminately. No matter who wins they'll likely be assholes who hate us for some reason, if we bomb them all we won't have to wrack our brains trying to figure out why any one group is shouting "Death to America". It would at least give them reasons we could understand. Osama Bin Ladin hated us because we defended his country in a war. That doesn't really make much sense. If we kill the next Osama's family, at least we'll understand where he's coming from. In the long run, it'll make diplomacy easier. So bombs away.
Then, nuke the moon.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2011, 11:43:50 PM
Looks like things are continuing to go in the Rebel's favor. I think the war will be over in a couple of months.
:lol: Don't ever change, Tim.
The Rebel Alliance is too well equipped. They're more dangerous than you realize!
Quote from: Syt on July 22, 2011, 10:40:22 AM
The Rebel Alliance is too well equipped. They're more dangerous than you realize!
It's a Trap!
Quote
BENGHAZI, Libya (Reuters) - Libyan rebels said on Friday the gunmen who shot dead the rebel military chief were fighters of an allied militia, in apparent confirmation of deep rifts among the forces struggling to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.
The reports follow 24 hours of confusion over the killing of Abdel Fattah Younes, a defector from Gaddafi's inner circle, whose death deals a blow both to the rebels and their Western backers.
There had been widespread speculation as to whether Younes had been killed in an internal rebel feud or by Gaddafi forces which had penetrated the Benghazi-based movement.
The killing of such a senior figure was a setback for the rebels as they were winning broader international recognition and launching an offensive in the west, and has deepened fears that divisions within the rebel camp will prolong the conflict.
Rebel minister Ali Tarhouni told reporters in Benghazi that an allied militia leader who had gone to fetch Younes from the front line had been arrested and had confessed that his subordinates had carried out the killing.
"It was not him. His lieutenants did it," Tarhouni said, without giving details about the militia. He added that the killers were still at large.
Rebel leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil said on Thursday Younes had been recalled for questioning to Benghazi but was killed before he arrived. Relatives said they retrieved a burned and bullet-riddled body.
CALLS FOR UNITY
The rebels have seized swathes of the country, but five months into the rebellion still appear far from ousting Gaddafi and remain poorly equipped.
Speculation about the assassination of Younes ranged widely. There were reports that he had been suspected of feeding the Gaddafi camp with information. One rebel commander said Islamists whom Younes had targeted in his job as interior minister may have been to blame.
The United States, which like some 30 other nations has formally recognized the opposition, said Younes's death was a blow but called for solidarity among the rebels.
"What's important is that they work both diligently and transparently to ensure the unity of the Libyan opposition," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said in Washington.
On Friday, weeping relatives and supporters brought Younes's coffin into the main square of Benghazi to mourn him, as fighters fired guns in the air.
Some family members vowed allegiance to the rebels' political leader. "A message to Mustafa Abdel Jalil: We will walk with you all the way," nephew Mohammed Younes told hundreds of mourners in the main square.
RUMORS OF SECRET TALKS
Younes, from eastern Libya where the rebels are strongest, had been Gaddafi's interior minister but switched sides to become the military chief in the rebel Transitional National Council.
Rebel defense minister Omar Hariri, visiting the west, said Younes's death would have an impact on rebel fighters. "But they will recover, and there will be other leaders," he said.
Rebels took swathes of Libya soon after launching their uprising in February against Gaddafi's 41 years of domination of the oil-producing North African state, but have made few recent advances despite the support of NATO air strikes.
They said they had seized several towns in the Western Mountains on Thursday but are yet to make a major breakthrough.
A rebel commander near Ghezaia told Reuters on Friday that around 100 insurgents had taken control of the town, from which Gaddafi forces had dominated plains below the mountains.
Reuters could not go there to confirm the report as rebels said the area could be mined. But through binoculars from a rebel-held ridge near Nalut, reporters could see no sign of Gaddafi's forces in Ghezaia.
Fighters on the front line near the town of Misrata said they viewed Younes as a martyr and would avenge his death.
"It will be an extra motive for us in the fight against the tyrant," said Khaled al-Uwayyib.
With prospects fading for a negotiated settlement, the five-month-old civil war will grind on into the Muslim holy month of Ramadan in August.
Nick Witney, analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Paris, said the West had hoped for a "nice simple conflict" with right prevailing, but this had ignored the nuanced, tribal nature of Libyan politics.
"It was a brave and right thing to do," he said. "But I feel we've lost the moral high ground a bit and wandered into something that will be prolonged and messy, but we're not in a position to sort out."
(Additional reporting by Michael Georgy near Ghezaia; Mussab Al-Khairalla in Misrata; Alexandria Sage in Paris; Samia Nakhoul, Avril Ormsby and Clare Kane in London and Missy Ryan in Tripoli; Joseph Nasr in Berlin; Hamid Ould Ahmed in Algiers; writing by David Lewis and Richard Meares; editing by Andrew Roche)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2Fl0t4jruJadT5vNXACA7GMA--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTExMztweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9ODU7dz0xNTA-%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Fap_webfeeds%2F6cadd775d4853f10f40e6a706700226e.jpg&hash=796c5404982c0ab12ec6fc280c9fc0911221b854)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FZ4GT6aZUaf4aaScDO0fMIA--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0yNzM7cT04NTt3PTQ1MA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2FReuters%2F2011-07-29T160734Z_01_BTRE76S18SP00_RTROPTP_2_CNEWS-US-LIBYA.JPG&hash=9695188f1934b0a64f98545094be207ef121d59b)
People carry the coffin of Libya's rebel military commander Abdel Fattah Younes during his burial in Benghazi July 29, 2011. REUTERS/Esam Al-Fetori
Shocking. :)
Looking good in the west
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fcb%2FTripolitanian_Front.svg%2F800px-Tripolitanian_Front.svg.png&hash=3ca28edbf9fff9f3b34cca8fdb843e452f050805)
:D
Well, it finally seems that the rebels is making so headway, so here is an update on the conflict. From huge mess of conflicting reports and half truths that surround the media reports from Libya, have I more or less been able to piece these reports together...
Brega Front in the East: The rebels control the eastern New Brega, the University compound and most of the old city in the center. However the rebels haven't been able to make any progress in the all important port and industry area to the west...
Misratah Pocket east of Tripoli: The main offensive towards Tripoli has bogged down in the suburbs of Zlitan some 100km east of Tripoli, however the rebels has begun to push south expanding pocket along the main roads along the coast and towards the Nafusa mountains, something that in the end effectively may cut Tripoli of from the rest of the country...
Nafusa mountains south of tripoli: Rebels and pro- Gaddafi forces are fighting for the all important town Gharyan east of the Nafusa mountain range. The city lies on the main road connecting Tripoli with the south of the country. This is likely why Gaddafi has concentrated most if not all his remaining offensive forces in the area, trying to push the rebel back into the mountains, launching counter attack after counter attack...
Tunisian border: In a surprise move have the rebels been able to cross the plains between the Nafusa mountains and the coast and open up a new front west of Tripoli. Heavy fighting is reported from coastal town of Zawiyah, less than 40km west of Tripoli. Further west close the all important border crossing Ras Ajdir has another group of rebels started to attack the small coastal town of Abu Kammash...
If this new offensive from the rebels succeed, will the rebel effectively have cut of main supply line for food and gasoline to Tripoli. And If the pro- Gaddafi forces can't keep the coastal road to Tunisia open, may we very well start to see the end game of this conflict...
Reuters now reports that the rebel flag is now flying in the center of the coastal city of Zawiyah west of Tripoli.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/14/us-libya-zawiyah-scene-idUSTRE77D11N20110814 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/14/us-libya-zawiyah-scene-idUSTRE77D11N20110814)
If true, are Tripoli effectively cut of from the Tunisian border and it can't be long before there will be a shortage of food and gasoline in the capital. I expect to see the UN starting to deliver food aid to Tripoli very soon...
huzzah. this isnt the first time things have looked good and in the past they always turned around again but...im hopeful
If true, I'm happy Zawiyah has been libeerated. The people of Zawiyah fought like lions until they were overun in the beginning of the war.
The really sad thing is that if the europeans could have mustered the equivalent of a MEU Brigade at the start of the war this would have been resolved months ago.
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 09:50:37 AM
The really sad thing is that if the europeans could have mustered the equivalent of a MEU Brigade at the start of the war this would have been resolved months ago.
no peace for oil!!!!
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 14, 2011, 05:04:01 AMthe all important port and industry area to the west...
...
the all important town Gharyan east of the Nafusa mountain range.
...
the all important border crossing Ras Ajdir
That's a lot of all important.
looks like a giant red dong is racing to the sea.
Quote from: ulmont on August 14, 2011, 01:35:48 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 14, 2011, 05:04:01 AMthe all important port and industry area to the west...
...
the all important town Gharyan east of the Nafusa mountain range.
...
the all important border crossing Ras Ajdir
That's a lot of all important.
Well, I did write in segments, while I was checking different news sources, so I may accidentally have used the phrase a couple of times... ;)
Quote from: ulmont on August 14, 2011, 01:35:48 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 14, 2011, 05:04:01 AMthe all important port and industry area to the west...
...
the all important town Gharyan east of the Nafusa mountain range.
...
the all important border crossing Ras Ajdir
That's a lot of all important.
Paradoxically, it appears as though Libya has a lot of all important places, without being important in the aggregate.
From the Brega frontline...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/world/africa/15libya.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/world/africa/15libya.html?_r=1)
QuoteThe rebels near Brega fired rockets from positions in a valley as their tanks, rarely seen in action, fired from the edge of a nearby hill. But at the sound of incoming rocket fire, the rebel fighters panicked, jumped in their trucks and drove away from the front lines.
Well, there is your problem... <_<
The Big Q is getting desperate. He's started shooting off Scuds.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7698701.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 15, 2011, 07:33:01 PM
The Big Q is getting desperate. He's started shooting off Scuds.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7698701.html
I wonder if he can hit Italy.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 07:45:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 15, 2011, 07:33:01 PM
The Big Q is getting desperate. He's started shooting off Scuds.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7698701.html
I wonder if he can hit Italy.
I think they could reach Sicily depending on where he launched them from in Libya.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 15, 2011, 03:21:02 AM
From the Brega frontline...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/world/africa/15libya.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/world/africa/15libya.html?_r=1)
QuoteThe rebels near Brega fired rockets from positions in a valley as their tanks, rarely seen in action, fired from the edge of a nearby hill. But at the sound of incoming rocket fire, the rebel fighters panicked, jumped in their trucks and drove away from the front lines.
Well, there is your problem... <_<
What did you seriously expect?
Muslims in general, and arabs in specific, have never been known for their bravery.
Yeah, they got nuts that blow themselves up.
That ain't bravery. That is a controlled detonation. You control the when and how.
Bravery is to face the uncertainty of combat well aware of the consequences.
Uncertainty. Not knowing where that bullet is going to hit you, what limb that IED is going to take from you.
Not knowing if today is the day.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 07:45:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 15, 2011, 07:33:01 PM
The Big Q is getting desperate. He's started shooting off Scuds.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7698701.html
I wonder if he can hit Italy.
It might improve southern Italy some.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 07:45:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 15, 2011, 07:33:01 PM
The Big Q is getting desperate. He's started shooting off Scuds.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7698701.html
I wonder if he can hit Italy.
Europe would surrender.
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
Muslims in general, and arabs in specific, have never been known for their bravery.
Just finished reading a book on the French Foreign Legion; it mentions several times the bravery of he tirailleurs algeriens, especially during the conquests of Indochina and of Madagascar.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 07:57:33 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
Muslims in general, and arabs in specific, have never been known for their bravery.
Just finished reading a book on the French Foreign Legion; it mentions several times the bravery of he tirailleurs algeriens, especially during the conquests of Indochina and of Madagascar.
The Moroccans and Algerians in Juin's corps in Italy were pretty nasty also.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2011, 08:05:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 07:57:33 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
Muslims in general, and arabs in specific, have never been known for their bravery.
Just finished reading a book on the French Foreign Legion; it mentions several times the bravery of he tirailleurs algeriens, especially during the conquests of Indochina and of Madagascar.
The Moroccans and Algerians in Juin's corps in Italy were pretty nasty also.
nasty ≠ brave
QuoteTripoli facing three-sided advance by Libyan rebels
Capital faces onslaught from south, east and west as rebel commanders say they have made significant advances
There are rumours of Gadaffi soon leaving the country and Tunisia willing to give him asylum. Sounds weird but stranger things have happened.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 07:57:33 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
Muslims in general, and arabs in specific, have never been known for their bravery.
Just finished reading a book on the French Foreign Legion; it mentions several times the bravery of he tirailleurs algeriens, especially during the conquests of Indochina and of Madagascar.
When I read a book on the Spanish Civil War I got the impression that the Moroccans were the only soldiers really worth a damn, at least in the beginning.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2011, 07:54:47 PM
When I read a book on the Spanish Civil War I got the impression that the Moroccans were the only soldiers really worth a damn, at least in the beginning.
Does take some cojones to invent (and use) the Molotov cocktail on the spur of the moment.
Beevor's book made it sound like the Spanish Foreign Legion knew what they were doing too.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2011, 07:54:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 07:57:33 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
Muslims in general, and arabs in specific, have never been known for their bravery.
Just finished reading a book on the French Foreign Legion; it mentions several times the bravery of he tirailleurs algeriens, especially during the conquests of Indochina and of Madagascar.
When I read a book on the Spanish Civil War I got the impression that the Moroccans were the only soldiers really worth a damn, at least in the beginning.
Well, that's sort of true.
Moroccan units were by far the best units at the start, but that was mostly because the Moroccan troops didn't really care about the politics of the SCW, they just followed their officer's orders. And the officers were almost entirely on the rebel side, because as I understand it, it was SOP in Spain to send the disaffected members of the officer corps to Morocco. In most of the rest of the army, the units more-or-less fell apart, because their officers were split between the 2 sides.
They were also regular troops pitted against militias.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 07:45:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 15, 2011, 07:33:01 PM
The Big Q is getting desperate. He's started shooting off Scuds.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7698701.html
I wonder if he can hit Italy.
The real question is whether or not he can hit Spain.
Not with Scuds. Maybe one of his Korean missiles could get to Mallorca.
I don't fancy his chances of hitting the target there.
Why not just shoot at Italy?
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2011, 12:48:41 AM
I don't fancy his chances of hitting the target there.
Why not just shoot at Italy?
Why would he do something like that? HAY GUYS INVADE ME WITH YER WHOLE ARMY PLZ... :wacko:
Then again, it is Gadhafi.... :hmm:
Then again, it is Italy... :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2011, 06:04:48 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2011, 12:48:41 AM
I don't fancy his chances of hitting the target there.
Why not just shoot at Italy?
Why would he do something like that? HAY GUYS INVADE ME WITH YER WHOLE ARMY PLZ... :wacko:
Then again, it is Gadhafi.... :hmm:
Then again, it is Italy... :blush:
Cause a collapse of the Italian government. He's crazy enough to actually try it, and does not actually have much to lose. It's difficult to know exactly how Europe would respond.
Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2011, 06:04:48 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2011, 12:48:41 AM
I don't fancy his chances of hitting the target there.
Why not just shoot at Italy?
Why would he do something like that? HAY GUYS INVADE ME WITH YER WHOLE ARMY PLZ... :wacko:
Then again, it is Gadhafi.... :hmm:
Then again, it is Italy... :blush:
Why would Spain be any better?
And hey. The Italians sending troops in could really help Gadaffi in his 'omg colonialists!11' rants.
A lesson learned from the Madrid bombing.
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2011, 07:43:58 AM
Why would Spain be any better?
How about not shooting missiles at Europe at all? :smarty:
The end of the war is upon us. :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8713761/Libya-conflict-Col-Gaddafi-faces-rebel-uprising-on-streets-of-Tripoli.html
QuoteLibya conflict: Col Gaddafi faces rebel uprising on streets of Tripoli
Fighting erupted in Tripoli overnight after rebels closed in on the Libyan capital, raising hopes among his opponents that Muammar Gaddafi's regime is finally on the brink of collapse.
By Nick Meo, in Zintan, Libya
12:03AM BST 21 Aug 2011
Gunfire, anti-aircraft fire and explosions rang out across the city on Saturday night as rebel commanders hailed the start of an attack on the dictator's final stronghold.
Residents reported fighting in neighbourhoods in the north, east and south-west of the city and said rebels were in the streets, although the Libyan government insisted the capital was "safe and stable".
Jumma Ibrahim, a rebel spokesman, said: "The revolution from inside Tripoli has officially started in many parts ... of Tripoli, and is expected to spread to all of Tripoli."
But in a typically defiant audio message broadcast on state television early on Sunday, Col Gaddafi claimed to have repelled the rebels in the city.
"Those rats ... were attacked by the masses tonight and we eliminated them," he said, adding that rebel activity in Tripoli had amounted to little more than "fireworks". He called on his supporters to mass against the rebels and win back the towns that had fallen to them.
But a British nurse working in Tripoli told the BBC that it had been a "horrific night" of fighting in the capital.
Colonel Fadlallah Haroun, a rebel military commander in Benghazi, claimed the fighting marked the beginning of an assault on the capital co-ordinated with Nato forces.
Col Haroun said that weapons were assembled and sent by tugboats to Tripoli on Friday night.
"The fighters in Tripoli are rising up in two places at the moment - some are in the Tajoura neighborhood and the other is near the Matiga airport," he told the Arabic satellite channel Al-Jazeera.
A senior rebel official said the "next hours are crucial" and claimed many pro-Gaddafi units had fled.
"The zero hour has started. The rebels in Tripoli have risen up," said Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, vice-chairman of the NTC, based in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.
"There is co-ordination with the rebels in Tripoli. This was a pre-set plan. They've been preparing for a while. There's coordination with the rebels approaching from the east, west and south."
Mr Ghoga said Nato warplanes were launching raids to distract Col Gaddafi's forces. "The next hours are crucial. Many of their (pro-Gaddafi) brigades and their commanders have fled."
A Libyan government spokesman admitted that "armed people sneaked into Tripoli" but claimed they had been dealt with. They said the rebels attacked in "small groups of a few dozen".
While the precise scale of Saturday night's unrest was unclear, rebel advances on Tripoli in the past few days have already heaped unprecedented pressure on Gaddafi.
The six-month conflict took a dramatic turn last week when rebels suddenly seized the coastal city of Zawiyah just 30 miles west of the capital.
Meanwhile in Zintan, the rebel headquarters town in the western mountains, streams of red tracer fire lit up the night sky as a rumour spread that Gaddafi and his hated sons had quit.
Hundreds gathered in Zintan's centre at about 10pm on Saturday as fighters, old men and even young boys fired thousands of rounds into the air amid a joyous outpouring of excitment.
"It is a victory for us if he has gone," said Yusuf Al-Hamadi, a student, aged 23. "But I cannot believe it yet."
Walid Alsuuni, a student from Zintan aged 29, said: "The report is that Gaddafi and his sons have escaped outside Libya. They have gone and we are free. If it is true, this means that the war is over and peace will return to Libya."
However Libya's Information Minister, Moussa Ibrahim, said Gaddafi remained the leader of the Libyan people and insisted the capital was well-defended.
In comments broadcast on state television, Ibrahim renewed a call to rebels to surrender, saying they would be forgiven even if "they have killed our relatives".
"I ensure Libyans that Gaddafi is your leader ... Tripoli is surrounded by thousands to defend it," he said.
Even as the rebels appeared to be closing in on the capital abd rumours swirled again that his father may have fled the country already, Col Gaddafi's son Seif al-Islam said the regime would not "abandon the fight".
"We have a long breath. We are in our land and in our country. We will resist for six months, one year, two years ... and we will win," he said.
It will be over by Christmas :bowler:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 21, 2011, 02:42:47 AM
It will be over by Christmas :bowler:
Home before the Christmas Tree needles fall!
My murder boner is returning.
Rooting for Gadhafi now. :cool:
QuoteLibyan opposition fighters say they have entreated the Green Square in central Tripoli. They entered the capital from the west and are about eight kilometres from the centre of the city.
Britain's Sky news quoting its reporter on the ground, said crowds of Libyans had poured into the streets to greet the advancing rebel army, adding that there were no signs of resistance from forces loyal to veteran leader Muammar Gaddafi.
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya)
Damn that was quick.
Quote
TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — The trappings of Moammar Gadhafi's regime crumbled Sunday as hundreds of euphoric Libyan rebels overran a major military base defending the capital, carted away truckloads of weapons and raced to the outskirts of Tripoli with virtually no resistance.
The rebels' surprising and speedy leap forward, after six months of largely deadlocked civil war, was packed into just a few dramatic hours. By nightfall, they had advanced more than 20 miles to the edge of Gadhafi's last major bastion of support.
Along the way, they freed several hundred prisoners from a regime lockup. The fighters and the prisoners — many looking weak and dazed and showing scars and bruises from beatings — embraced and wept with joy.
Thousands of jubilant civilians rushed out of their homes to cheer the long convoys of pickup trucks packed with rebel fighters shooting in the air. Some were hoarse, shouting: "We are coming for you, frizz-head," a mocking nickname for Gadhafi. In villages along the way that fell to the rebels one after another, mosque loudspeakers blared "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great."
"We are going to sacrifice our lives for freedom," said Nabil al-Ghowail, a 30-year-old dentist holding a rifle in the streets of Janzour, a suburb just six miles west of Tripoli. Heavy gunfire erupted nearby.
As town after town fell and Gadhafi forces melted away, the mood turned euphoric. Some shouted: "We are getting to Tripoli tonight." Others were shooting in the air, honking horns and yelling "Allahu Akbar."
Inside Tripoli, widespread clashes erupted for a second day between rebel "sleeper cells" and Gadhafi loyalists. Rebels fighter who spoke to relatives in Tripoli by phone said hundreds rushed into the streets in anti-regime protests in several neighborhoods.
Libyan state television aired an angry audio message from Gadhafi Sunday night, urging families in Tripoli to arm themselves and fight for the capital.
"The time is now to fight for your politics, your oil, your land," he said. "I am with you in Tripoli — together until the ends of the earth," Gadhafi shouted.
The day's first breakthrough came when hundreds of rebels fought their way into a major symbol of the Gadhafi regime — the base of the elite 32nd Brigade commanded by Gadhafi's son, Khamis. Fighters said they met with little resistance.
Hundreds of rebels cheered wildly and danced as they took over the compound filled with eucalyptus trees, raising their tricolor from the front gate and tearing down a large billboard of Gadhafi.
Inside, they cracked open wooden crates labeled "Libyan Armed Forces" and loaded their trucks with huge quantities of munitions. One of the rebels carried off a tube of grenades, while another carted off two mortars.
"This is the wealth of the Libyan people that he was using against us," said Ahmed al-Ajdal, 27, pointing to his haul. "Now we will use it against him and any other dictator who goes against the Libyan people."
One group started up a tank, drove it out of the gate, crushing the median of the main highway and driving off toward Tripoli. Rebels celebrated the capture with deafening amounts of celebratory gunfire, filling the air with smoke.
Across the street, rebels raided a huge warehouse, making off with hundreds of crates of rockets, artillery shells and large-caliber ammunition. The warehouse had once been using to storage packaged foods, and in the back, cans of beans were still stacked toward the ceiling.
The prisoners had been held in the walled compound and when the rebels rushed in, they freed more than 300 of them.
"We were sitting in our cells when all of a sudden we heard lots of gunfire and people yelling 'Allahu Akbar.' We didn't know what was happening, and then we saw rebels running in and saying 'We're on your side.' And they let us out," said 23-year-old Majid al-Hodeiri from Zawiya. He said he was captured four months ago by Gadhafi's forces and taken to base. He said he was beaten and tortured while under detention.
Many of the prisoners looked disoriented as they stopped at a gathering place for fighters several miles away from the base. Some had signs of severe beatings. Others were dressed in tattered T-shirts or barefoot. Rebels fighters and prisoners embraced.
From the military base, about 16 miles west of Tripoli, the convoy pushed on toward the capital.
Mahmoud al-Ghwei, 20 and unarmed, said he had just came along with a friend for the ride .
"It's a great feeling. For all these years, we wanted freedom and Gadhafi kept it from us. Now we're going to get rid of Gadhafi and get our freedom," he said.
At nightfall, the fighters reached Janzour, a Tripoli suburb. Along the way, they were greeted by civilians lining the streets and waving rebel flags. One man grabbed a rebel flag that had been draped over the hood of a slow-moving car and kissed it, overcome with emotion.
"We are not going back," said Issam Wallani, another rebel. "God willing, this evening we will enter Tripoli."
The uprising against Gadhafi broke out in mid-February, and anti-regime protests quickly spread across the vast desert nation with only 6 million people. A brutal regime crackdown quickly transformed the protests into an armed rebellion. Rebels seized Libya's east, setting up an internationally recognized transitional government there, and two pockets in the west, the port city of Misrata and the Nafusa mountain range.
Gadhafi clung to the remaining territory, and his forces failed to subdue the rebellion in Misrata, Libya's third-largest city, and in the Nafusa mountains. Since the start of August, thousands of rebel fighters, including many who fled Gadhafi-held cities, joined an offensive launched from the mountains toward the coast.
The fighters who had set out from the mountains three weeks ago rushed toward Tripoli on Sunday, start out at dawn from a village just east of the coastal city of Zawiya. Only a day earlier had the rebels claimed full control of Zawiya, an anti-regime stronghold with 200,000 people and Libya's last functioning oil refinery.
Rebels said Saturday that they had launched their first attack on Tripoli in coordination with NATO and gunbattles and mortar rounds rocked the city. NATO aircraft also made heavier than usual bombing runs after nightfall, with loud explosions booming across the city.
On Sunday, more heavy machine gun fire and explosions rang out across the capital with more clashes and protests.
Government minders in a hotel where foreign journalists have been staying in Tripoli armed themselves on Sunday in anticipation of a rebel take over. The hotel manager said he had received calls from angry rebels threatening to charge the hotel to capture the government's spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim.
Heavy gun fire was heard in the neighborhood around the Rixos hotel, and smoke was seen rising from a close by building.
"We are scared and staying in our houses, but the younger boys are going out to protect our homes," said a woman who spoke to The Associated Press by telephone from the pro-rebel Tripoli neighborhood of Bin Ashour. She spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. She said a neighbor's son was shot dead on Saturday night by Gadhafi troops as he tried to protect his street with a group of rebel youth.
Nuri al-Zawi, another resident of Bin Ashour, told the AP by phone that the rebels were using light arms to protect their streets, and in some cases were using only their bodies to fend off the Gadhafi troops riding in pickup trucks.
"We are used to this situation now. We are a city that is cut off from the world now," he said.
The residents reported clashes in neighborhoods all over Tripoli as well as the city's Mitiga military airport. They said they heard loud explosions and exchanges in of gunfire in the Fashloum, Tajoura and Bin Ashour neighborhoods. Residents and opposition fighters also reported large anti-regime protests in those same neighborhoods. In some of them, thousands braved the bullets of snipers perched atop high buildings.
Mukhtar Lahab, a rebel commander closing in on Tripoli and a former captain in Gadhafi's army, said his relatives inside the capital reported mass protests in four neighborhoods known as sympathetic to the opposition: Fashloum, Souk al-Jouma, Tajoura and Janzour. He said mosques there were rallying residents with chants of "Allahu Akbar" or "God is great," broadcast on loudspeakers.
Quote(Reuters) - Muammar Gaddafi's presidential guard has surrendered to Libya's rebels, Al Arabiya reported on Sunday, citing the rebel National Transitional Council.
Al Jazeera television also reported that troops responsible for the veteran leader's security had laid down their arms.
Goodbye, Amazon Women from the Moon. :(
QuoteGaddafi's sons arrested - report
August 21 2011 at 11:04pm
By Ramadan al-Fatash
Reuters
Cairo - Libyan rebels said on Sunday night that two sons of embattled Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had been arrested, the broadcaster Al Jazeera reported.
Seif al-Islam and Al-Saadi were arrested in a tourist village in western Tripoli, Abu Bakr al-Tarbulsi, a rebel spokesperson told Al Jazeera from the Libyan capital.
There was no word on the whereabouts of Gaddafi.
Meanwhile, rebels said they had entered the Green Square near Gaddafi's compound.
They said pro-Gaddafi forces retreated, and many of them were captured.
Al Jazeera showed footage of people in Tripoli welcoming the rebels.
QuoteJumma Ibrahim, a rebel spokesman, said: "The revolution from inside Tripoli has officially started in many parts ... of Tripoli, and is expected to spread to all of Tripoli."
A truly eloquent man.
Also:
QuoteJumma Ibrahim, a rebel spokesman
QuoteLibya's Information Minister, Moussa Ibrahim
:hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on August 21, 2011, 04:08:43 PM
Quote(Reuters) - Muammar Gaddafi's presidential guard has surrendered to Libya's rebels, Al Arabiya reported on Sunday, citing the rebel National Transitional Council.
Al Jazeera television also reported that troops responsible for the veteran leader's security had laid down their arms.
Goodbye, Amazon Women from the Moon. :(
I gotta say this is probably all going to go to shit, but the account that Citizen K posted is pretty awesome. Dune-style awesome. :P
So now they'll set up a liberal democracy?
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2011, 04:38:11 PM
So now they'll set up a liberal democracy?
Yes! :cool:
:hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2011, 04:36:39 PM
I guess he is no longer seif.
lol is he: Skairt al-Islam now.
*groan*
This better not interrupt Hell's Kitchen tomorrow. YOU DONKEY.
ME TARZAN
BBC says Ghaddafi has fled to Algeria.
LOL, Libyan gov't calls for negotiations.
The rebels seem to be taking Tripoli with ease. Hopefully they do not get repulsed/stuck in stalemate again.
Now the ICC says they have him detained.
More importantly, where are his female bodyguards?
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2011, 05:57:45 PM
More importantly, where are his female bodyguards?
Surrendered.
Sky saying it was Saif Gaddafi that was detained. That's the younger son.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2011, 05:57:45 PM
More importantly, where are his female bodyguards?
Probably getting raped as we speak; I do not think it unimaginable that the rebels might use Gaddafi tactics on Gaddafi's forces.
Dennis Kucinich picks the wrong time to call for an end to NATO involvement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/21/libya-nato-intervention-gaddafi
Why is it the wrong time?
I thought he was against it from the beginning. It's nice that the whole thing is working out well at the moment but that doesn't make it a good idea.
Nice to see people rejoicing from their newfound freedom. I wonder when and how they're going to piss it away. :hmm:
They will soon tire of the chores of Tripoli.
MSNBC has not deviated from its weekend lineup of prison shows and Chris Hansen busting pervs. LEAN FORWARD.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2011, 06:46:41 PM
MSNBC has not deviated from its weekend lineup of prison shows and Chris Hansen busting pervs. LEAN FORWARD.
hey hey, the one guy in the control room woke up.
http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/
Tripoli is a fucking madhouse right now.
Dead?
http://twitpic.com/69qlws
I doubt they'd kill him, or he killed himself, but you never know. There's no "official" word about him being captured or killed yet.
Could be fake.
Murder boner: Fully erect
Quote from: DGuller on August 21, 2011, 06:23:50 PM
Nice to see people rejoicing from their newfound freedom. I wonder when and how they're going to piss it away. :hmm:
Adopting the Gold Standard.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2011, 08:27:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 21, 2011, 06:23:50 PM
Nice to see people rejoicing from their newfound freedom. I wonder when and how they're going to piss it away. :hmm:
Adopting the Gold Standard.
What difference would that make in a place like Libya?
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2011, 08:54:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2011, 08:27:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 21, 2011, 06:23:50 PM
Nice to see people rejoicing from their newfound freedom. I wonder when and how they're going to piss it away. :hmm:
Adopting the Gold Standard.
What difference would that make in a place like Libya?
Things can always get worse.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2011, 09:00:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2011, 08:54:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2011, 08:27:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 21, 2011, 06:23:50 PM
Nice to see people rejoicing from their newfound freedom. I wonder when and how they're going to piss it away. :hmm:
Adopting the Gold Standard.
What difference would that make in a place like Libya?
Things can always get worse.
They can, but without understanding why things work, you don't understand the effect that adopting a gold standard in Libya. Your problem is that you love parroting whatever Matthews, Maddow and Moore tell you to think. You're like Martinus, only more mentally stable.
Thomas Moore?
Fuck. Kudaf...Quada...Qada.... Gadaffi goes down. Who would have thought that back in the 80s it would only take Lord Humungus to bring about defeat?
Well, hopefully Europe gets their fair share of collateral damage when North Africa goes to war.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 21, 2011, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2011, 05:57:45 PM
More importantly, where are his female bodyguards?
Surrendered.
The images going through my mind right now....lets just say they`re rather kinky and hot.
Quote from: PDH on August 21, 2011, 09:30:09 PM
Fuck. Kudaf...Quada...Qada.... Gadaffi goes down. Who would have thought that back in the 80s it would only take Lord Humungus to bring about defeat?
Lord Humungus > Ronald Reagan
And of course,
Barack Obama > Ronald Reagan
Quote from: Tyr on August 21, 2011, 09:52:09 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on August 21, 2011, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2011, 05:57:45 PM
More importantly, where are his female bodyguards?
Surrendered.
The images going through my mind right now....lets just say they`re rather kinky and hot.
The rebels are probably going Patmaster on them.
Quote from: Tyr on August 21, 2011, 09:52:09 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on August 21, 2011, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2011, 05:57:45 PM
More importantly, where are his female bodyguards?
Surrendered.
The images going through my mind right now....lets just say they`re rather kinky and hot.
Heh. It takes all sorts, I guess. I'm really not into gang rape fantasies.
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2011, 06:30:21 PM
They will soon tire of the chores of Tripoli.
:glare:
How it most suck to be a rebel from the eastern part of Libya now. While the upstart rebels from the mountains have taken Tripoli, has the Benghazi based rebels spent 4 months racing up and down the coast road between Azjdabiya and Brega...
I guess the chances of another reversal are slim now. :(
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 21, 2011, 11:14:46 PM
How it most suck to be a rebel from the eastern part of Libya now. While the upstart rebels from the mountains have taken Tripoli, has the Benghazi based rebels spent 4 months racing up and down the coast road between Azjdabiya and Brega...
Who were all these rebels supposidely brought in by boat?
Wouldn:t they be from the east?
Of course, your point still stands, sucks to be those guys stuck on the unglamourous front. But then the same is true of every war. For all the troops being showered with flowers and girls as they rode a tank through France there was some mook boiling alive in Burma.
Quote from: Tyr on August 22, 2011, 12:18:13 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 21, 2011, 11:14:46 PM
How it most suck to be a rebel from the eastern part of Libya now. While the upstart rebels from the mountains have taken Tripoli, has the Benghazi based rebels spent 4 months racing up and down the coast road between Azjdabiya and Brega...
Who were all these rebels supposidely brought in by boat?
Wouldn:t they be from the east?
Of course, your point still stands, sucks to be those guys stuck on the unglamourous front. But then the same is true of every war. For all the troops being showered with flowers and girls as they rode a tank through France there was some mook boiling alive in Burma.
Those rebel that arrived by boat came from the Misrata pocket...
And I wouldn't call the Brega front unglamorous, remember until recently was brega the main front where all the international media was, where all the cameras was, remember all those posers from earlier in this thread...
2010 - Left to Right: Ben-Ali of Tunisia, Saleh of Yemen, Qaddafi of Libya, Mubarak of Egypt
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg148.imageshack.us%2Fimg148%2F2534%2F680741.jpg&hash=3d6956ff6430e7caa49b288100773970e0fc1c57)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2011, 02:13:12 AM
2010 - Left to Right: Ben-Ali of Tunisia, Saleh of Yemen, Qaddafi of Libya, Mubarak of Egypt
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg148.imageshack.us%2Fimg148%2F2534%2F680741.jpg&hash=3d6956ff6430e7caa49b288100773970e0fc1c57)
Whose hand is Saleh shaking? :huh:
Who's the Jap with the tan? :huh:
Fightback? WTF! :bleeding:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44218013/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.TlIQomFLNac
QuoteTRIPOLI, Libya — Heavy fighting was reported near Moammar Gadhafi's compound Monday as government forces launched a fightback after rebels swept into the heart of the Libyan capital and crowds took to the streets to celebrate what they saw as the end of the dictator's four decades in power.
Rebel spokesman Mohammed Abdel-Rahman said tanks emerged from the complex, known as Bab al-Aziziya, and began firing shortly after dawn.
Will they settle it through a fightoff?
NATO General Secretary on the situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z2EpSYhhe0w
LOL It's a trap.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2011, 04:28:51 AM
LOL It's a trap.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14612843 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14612843)
Oh yes...
Seems that there is still some bite left in the pro- Gaddafi forces...
Unconfirmed news: It looks like the pro- Gaddafi Bab al-Azizia compound is going to be the Reichstag of this battle. At the same time has Gaddafi younger son Khamis has risen from his grave* and is reorganizing the remains of the elite 32nd brigade for a counter attack to the east of Tripoli...
Looks more and like something out of the movie "Der untergang"...
*he has been declared dead at least 3 time the last couple of months...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 22, 2011, 08:17:00 AM
Unconfirmed news: It looks like the pro- Gaddafi Bab al-Azizia compound is going to be the Reichstag of this battle. At the same time has Gaddafi younger son Khamis has risen from his grave* and is reorganizing the remains of the elite 32nd brigade for a counter attack to the east of Tripoli...
Looks more and like something out of the movie "Der untergang"...
*he has been declared dead at least 3 time the last couple of months...
Will the defenses of the fortress be breached by: shai huluds? :nerd:
No.
Tripoli fell fast, didn't it? Only earlier in the weekend, the Rebels hadn't yet approached the city, from what I understand in the news. But I assume that those stil loyal to the regime became fewer and fewer, so that there weren't many to oppose the Rebels, outside of the last compound area. So there wasn't much to oppose the Rebel advance. Seems events progressed as some said, that it just took time for the Rebels to get better trained, equipped, and to better coordinate with NATO air power. Not that this was necessarily at a long stand still.
Quote from: KRonn on August 22, 2011, 09:10:39 AM
Tripoli fell fast, didn't it? Only earlier in the weekend, the Rebels hadn't yet approached the city, from what I understand in the news. But I assume that those stil loyal to the regime became fewer and fewer, so that there weren't many to oppose the Rebels, outside of the last compound area. So there wasn't much to oppose the Rebel advance. Seems events progressed as some said, that it just took time for the Rebels to get better trained, equipped, and to better coordinate with NATO air power. Not that this was necessarily at a long stand still.
Better coordinated, do I think is the key word here...
Reports in the last hour of NATO airstrikes on Gaddafi's compound.
Matthew Chance of CNN is saying he just had a chat with Saif Gaddafi, who was never captured at all and spent the evening in a convoy traveling around Tripoli. Now he's hanging out at the Rixos.
http://twitter.com/#!/mchancecnn
That's some wonderful work by the ICC. :rolleyes:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 22, 2011, 07:11:21 PM
Matthew Chance of CNN is saying he just had a chat with Saif Gaddafi, who was never captured at all and spent the evening in a convoy traveling around Tripoli. Now he's hanging out at the Rixos.
http://twitter.com/#!/mchancecnn
Yep, he's just done a brief interview with the bbc at the gaddafi HQ or possibly that hotel.
Not that rebel claims aren't often full of BS, but how do we know this CNN guy isn't being told to say that at gunpoint by the Gadhafists who are still controlling that hotel? :hmm:
I am going to laugh my ass off when Mummar and his boys re-emerge in Sirte.
So Saif hasn:t been captured then....hmm....
Doubles? Or just lies?
With the conflicting claims on control I suspect either side actually controls 20% or so with the rest being unoccupied by either so both assume they are naturally on their side.
The rebels showed up at Mohammed's house and he surrendered. Saif then tricked the TNC into thinking that he'd been captured while he sent a Khamis Brigade column to rescue his brother.
Large numbers of rebels have entered the Gaddafi compound, have captured the main housing complex and are pictured tearing down a statue of him. :cool:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg808.imageshack.us%2Fimg808%2F5228%2Fkaddafi.jpg&hash=4150f90fb4319d2d9805c00cc7d5e1d7791db884)
They hasn't fund Gaddadi yet, only one his hats... :D
I found this article on CNN. I don't know who Juan Cole is, except that he is apparently an idiot. I thought I'd post it here, cause I'm bored. I suppose some of his statements are accurate, but I'm not sure if anyone disagreed with him to begin with, but the idea that the war in Libya was
not a civil war seems mind boggling.
TOP TEN MYTHs ABOUT THE LIBYA WAR.
QuoteBy Juan Cole, Informed Comment
The Libyan Revolution has largely succeeded, and this is a moment of celebration, not only for Libyans but for a youth generation in the Arab world that has pursued a political opening across the region.
The secret of the uprising's final days of success lay in a popular revolt in the working-class districts of the capital, which did most of the hard work of throwing off the rule of secret police and military cliques. It succeeded so well that when revolutionary brigades entered the city from the west, many encountered little or no resistance, and they walked right into the center of the capital.
Moammar Gadhafi was in hiding as I went to press, and three of his sons were in custody. Saif al-Islam Gadhafi had apparently been the de facto ruler of the country in recent years, so his capture signaled a checkmate. (Checkmate is a corruption of the Persian "shah maat," the "king is confounded," since chess came west from India via Iran). [Editor's Note: This is no longer the case as of Tuesday August 23. It turns out Saif Gadhafi was not been captured by the rebels.]
The end game, wherein the people of Tripoli overthrew the Gadhafis and joined the opposition Transitional National Council, is the best case scenario that I had suggested was the most likely denouement for the revolution. I have been making this argument for some time, and it evoked a certain amount of incredulity when I said it in a lecture in the Netherlands in mid-June, but it has all along been my best guess that things would end the way they have. I got it right where others did not because my premises turned out to be sounder, i.e., that Gadhafi had lost popular support across the board and was in power only through main force.
Once enough of his heavy weapons capability was disrupted, and his fuel and ammunition supplies blocked, the underlying hostility of the common people to the regime could again manifest itself, as it had in February. I was moreover convinced that the generality of Libyans were attracted by the revolution and by the idea of a political opening, and that there was no great danger to national unity here.
I do not mean to underestimate the challenges that still lie ahead– mopping up operations against regime loyalists, reestablishing law and order in cities that have seen popular revolutions, reconstituting police and the national army, moving the Transitional National Council to Tripoli, founding political parties, and building a new, parliamentary regime. Even in much more institutionalized and less clan-based societies such as Tunisia and Egypt, these tasks have proved anything but easy. But it would be wrong, in this moment of triumph for the Libyan Second Republic, to dwell on the difficulties to come. Libyans deserve a moment of exultation.
Read: The great Tripoli uprising.
I have taken a lot of heat for my support of the revolution and of the United Nations-authorized intervention by the Arab League and NATO that kept it from being crushed. I haven't taken nearly as much heat as the youth of Misrata who fought off Gadhafi's tank barrages, though, so it is OK.
I hate war, having actually lived through one in Lebanon, and I hate the idea of people being killed. My critics who imagined me thrilling at NATO bombing raids were just being cruel. But here I agree with President Obama and his citation of Reinhold Niebuhr. You can't protect all victims of mass murder everywhere all the time. But where you can do some good, you should do it, even if you cannot do all good. I mourn the deaths of all the people who died in this revolution, especially since many of the Gadhafi brigades were clearly coerced (they deserted in large numbers as soon as they felt it safe). But it was clear to me that Gadhafi was not a man to compromise, and that his military machine would mow down the revolutionaries if it were allowed to.
Moreover, those who question whether there were U.S. interests in Libya seem to me a little blind. The U.S. has an interest in there not being massacres of people for merely exercising their right to free assembly. The U.S. has an interest in a lawful world order, and therefore in the United Nations Security Council resolution demanding that Libyans be protected from their murderous government. The U.S. has an interest in its NATO alliance, and NATO allies France and Britain felt strongly about this intervention. The U.S. has a deep interest in the fate of Egypt, and what happened in Libya would have affected Egypt (Gadhafi allegedly had high Egyptian officials on his payroll).
Given the controversies about the revolution, it is worthwhile reviewing the myths about the Libyan Revolution that led so many observers to make so many fantastic or just mistaken assertions about it.
Myth #1. Gadhafi was a progressive in his domestic policies.
While back in the 1970s, Gadhafi was probably more generous in sharing around the oil wealth with the population, buying tractors for farmers, etc., in the past couple of decades that policy changed. He became vindictive against tribes in the east and in the southwest that had crossed him politically, depriving them of their fair share in the country's resources. And in the past decade and a half, extreme corruption and the rise of post-Soviet-style oligarchs, including Gadhafi and his sons, have discouraged investment and blighted the economy. Workers were strictly controlled and unable to collectively bargain for improvements in their conditions. There was much more poverty and poor infrastructure in Libya than there should have been in an oil state.
Myth #2. Gadhafi was a progressive in his foreign policy.
Again, he traded for decades on positions, or postures, he took in the 1970s. In contrast, in recent years he played a sinister role in Africa, bankrolling brutal dictators and helping foment ruinous wars. In 1996 the supposed champion of the Palestinian cause expelled 30,000 stateless Palestinians from the country. After he came in from the cold, ending European and U.S. sanctions, he began buddying around with George W. Bush, Silvio Berlusconi and other right wing figures. Berlusconi has even said that he considered resigning as Italian prime minister once NATO began its intervention, given his close personal relationship to Gadhafi. Such a progressive.
Myth #3. It was only natural that Gadhafi sent his military against the protesters and revolutionaries; any country would have done the same.
No, it wouldn't, and this is the argument of a moral cretin. In fact, the Tunisian officer corps refused to fire on Tunisian crowds for dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and the Egyptian officer corps refused to fire on Egyptian crowds for Hosni Mubarak.
The willingness of the Libyan officer corps to visit macabre violence on protesting crowds derived from the centrality of the Gadhafi sons and cronies at the top of the military hierarchy and from the lack of connection between the people and the professional soldiers and mercenaries. Deploying the military against non-combatants was a war crime, and doing so in a widespread and systematic way was a crime against humanity. Gadhafi and his sons will be tried for this crime, which is not "perfectly natural."
Myth #4. There was a long stalemate in the fighting between the revolutionaries and the Gadhafi military.
There was not. This idea was fostered by the vantage point of many Western observers, in Benghazi. It is true that there was a long stalemate at Brega, which ended yesterday when the pro-Gadhafi troops there surrendered. But the two most active fronts in the war were Misrata and its environs, and the Western Mountain region.
Misrata fought an epic, Stalingrad-style, struggle of self-defense against attacking Gadhafi armor and troops, finally proving victorious with NATO help, and then they gradually fought to the west toward Tripoli. The most dramatic battles and advances were in the largely Berber Western Mountain region, where, again, Gadhafi armored units relentlessly shelled small towns and villages but were fought off (with less help from NATO initially, which I think did not recognize the importance of this theater).
Read: Obama demands regime change in Syria.
It was the revolutionary volunteers from this region who eventually took Zawiya, with the help of the people of Zawiya, last Friday and who thereby cut Tripoli off from fuel and ammunition coming from Tunisia and made the fall of the capital possible. Any close observer of the war since April has seen constant movement, first at Misrata and then in the Western Mountains, and there was never an over-all stalemate.
Myth #5. The Libyan Revolution was a civil war.
It was not, if by that is meant a fight between two big groups within the body politic. There was nothing like the vicious sectarian civilian-on-civilian fighting in Baghdad in 2006. The revolution began as peaceful public protests, and only when the urban crowds were subjected to artillery, tank, mortar and cluster bomb barrages did the revolutionaries begin arming themselves.
When fighting began, it was volunteer combatants representing their city quarters taking on trained regular army troops and mercenaries. That is a revolution, not a civil war. Only in a few small pockets of territory, such as Sirte and its environs, did pro-Gadhafi civilians oppose the revolutionaries, but it would be wrong to magnify a handful of skirmishes of that sort into a civil war. Gadhafi's support was too limited, too thin, and too centered in the professional military, to allow us to speak of a civil war.
Myth #6. Libya is not a real country and could have been partitioned between east and west.
Alexander Cockburn wrote,
"It requites no great prescience to see that this will all end up badly. Gadhafi's failure to collapse on schedule is prompting increasing pressure to start a ground war, since the NATO operation is, in terms of prestige, like the banks Obama has bailed out, Too Big to Fail. Libya will probably be balkanized."
I don't understand the propensity of Western analysts to keep pronouncing nations in the global south "artificial" and on the verge of splitting up. It is a kind of Orientalism. All nations are artificial.
Benedict Anderson dates the nation-state to the late 1700s, and even if it were a bit earlier, it is a new thing in history.
Moreover, most nation-states are multi-ethnic, and many long-established ones have sub-nationalisms that threaten their unity. Thus, the Catalans and Basque are uneasy inside Spain, the Scottish may bolt Britain any moment, etc., etc. In contrast, Libya does not have any well-organized, popular separatist movements.
It does have tribal divisions, but these are not the basis for nationalist separatism, and tribal alliances and fissures are more fluid than ethnicity (which is itself less fixed than people assume). Everyone speaks Arabic, though for Berbers it is the public language; Berbers were among the central Libyan heroes of the revolution, and will be rewarded with a more pluralist Libya.
This generation of young Libyans, who waged the revolution, have mostly been through state schools and have a strong allegiance to the idea of Libya. Throughout the revolution, the people of Benghazi insisted that Tripoli was and would remain the capital. Westerners looking for break-ups after dictatorships are fixated on the Balkan events after 1989, but there most often isn't an exact analogue to those in the contemporary Arab world.
Myth #7. There had to be NATO infantry brigades on the ground for the revolution to succeed.
Everyone from Cockburn to Max Boot put forward this idea. But there are not any foreign infantry brigades in Libya, and there are unlikely to be any. Libyans are very nationalistic and they made this clear from the beginning. Likewise the Arab League. NATO had some intelligence assets on the ground, but they were small in number, were requested behind the scenes for liaison and spotting by the revolutionaries and did not amount to an invasion force. The Libyan people never needed foreign ground brigades to succeed in their revolution.
Myth #8. The United States led the charge to war.
There is no evidence for this allegation whatsoever. When I asked Glenn Greenwald whether a U.S. refusal to join France and Britain in a NATO united front might not have destroyed NATO, he replied that NATO would never have gone forward unless the U.S. had plumped for the intervention in the first place.
I fear that answer was less fact-based and more doctrinaire than we are accustomed to hearing from Mr. Greenwald, whose research and analysis on domestic issues is generally first-rate. As someone not a stranger to diplomatic history, and who has actually heard briefings in Europe from foreign ministries and officers of NATO members, I'm offended at the glibness of an answer given with no more substantiation than an idee fixe.
The excellent McClatchy wire service reported on the reasons for which then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Pentagon, and Obama himself were extremely reluctant to become involved in yet another war in the Muslim world. It is obvious that the French and the British led the charge on this intervention, likely because they believed that a protracted struggle over years between the opposition and Gadhafi in Libya would radicalize it and give an opening to al-Qaeda and so pose various threats to Europe.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy had been politically mauled, as well, by the offer of his defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, to send French troops to assist Ben Ali in Tunisia (Alliot-Marie had been Ben Ali's guest on fancy vacations), and may have wanted to restore traditional French cachet in the Arab world as well as to look decisive to his electorate. Whatever Western Europe's motivations, they were the decisive ones, and the Obama administration clearly came along as a junior partner (something Sen. John McCain is complaining bitterly about).
Myth #9. Gadhafi would not have killed or imprisoned large numbers of dissidents in Benghazi, Derna, al-Bayda and Tobruk if he had been allowed to pursue his March Blitzkrieg toward the eastern cities that had defied him.
But we have real-world examples of how he would have behaved, in Zawiya, Tawargha, Misrata and elsewhere. His indiscriminate shelling of Misrata had already killed between 1000 and 2000 by last April,, and it continued all summer. At least one Gadhaf mass grave with 150 bodies in it has been discovered. And the full story of the horrors in Zawiya and elsewhere in the west has yet to emerge, but it will not be pretty. The opposition claims Gadhafi's forces killed tens of thousands. Public health studies may eventually settle this issue, but we know definitively what Gadhafi was capable of.
Myth #10. This was a war for Libya's oil.
That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI's profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA and Repsol.
Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Gadhafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/22/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war/?hpt=hp_t2
Hey the rebels won and no US boots had to be dirtied. Well done everyone.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Hey the rebels won and no US boots had to be dirtied. Well done everyone.
Didn't we lose a plane or something.
Yee Haw
Quote
Kucinich: NATO Commanders Should Be Prosecuted By International Criminal Court
Jon Terbush | Aug. 23, 2011, 2:46 PM
With the military intervention in Libya winding down, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) thinks it's time to consider criminal charges against not just Muammar Qaddafi and his forces, but against NATO's top commanders as well.
In a statement released Tuesday, Kucinich wrote that the international community has to hold both sides accountable for any crimes committed during the 5-month campaign, or risk tacitly validating the, "new international gangsterism"
"NATO's top commanders may have acted under color of international law but they are not exempt from international law," he wrote. "If members of the Gaddafi Regime are to be held accountable, NATO's top commanders must also be held accountable through the International Criminal Court for all civilian deaths resulting from bombing."
Kucinich questioned the U.S.' role in the intervention altogether, asking if the CIA had a hand in "fomenting a civil war. He also argued that the Obama administration and NATO had violated the March U.N. Security Council resolution that called for a no-fly zone over Libya, and reiterated his claim that Obama had violated the U.S. constitution by bypassing Congress before authorizing the use of American military force.
Back in March, Kucinich suggested that Obama should be impeached for sending U.S. troops to help enforce the no-fly zone. That effort garnered little support, though other lawmakers -- notably many Republicans -- agreed with Kucinich that the president should have first consulted them before committing U.S. forces to the intervention.
http://www.businessinsider.com/kucinich-nato-commanders-should-be-prosecuted-by-international-criminal-court-2011-8
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Hey the rebels won and no US boots had to be dirtied. Well done everyone.
If a civil war doesnt breaks out between factions, then I'll be satisfied no US boots or other peace keepers will be needed.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 23, 2011, 01:48:56 PM
Yee Haw
Quote
Kucinich: NATO Commanders Should Be Prosecuted By International Criminal Court
Jon Terbush | Aug. 23, 2011, 2:46 PM
With the military intervention in Libya winding down, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) thinks it's time to consider criminal charges against not just Muammar Qaddafi and his forces, but against NATO's top commanders as well.
In a statement released Tuesday, Kucinich wrote that the international community has to hold both sides accountable for any crimes committed during the 5-month campaign, or risk tacitly validating the, "new international gangsterism"
"NATO's top commanders may have acted under color of international law but they are not exempt from international law," he wrote. "If members of the Gaddafi Regime are to be held accountable, NATO's top commanders must also be held accountable through the International Criminal Court for all civilian deaths resulting from bombing."
Kucinich questioned the U.S.' role in the intervention altogether, asking if the CIA had a hand in "fomenting a civil war. He also argued that the Obama administration and NATO had violated the March U.N. Security Council resolution that called for a no-fly zone over Libya, and reiterated his claim that Obama had violated the U.S. constitution by bypassing Congress before authorizing the use of American military force.
Back in March, Kucinich suggested that Obama should be impeached for sending U.S. troops to help enforce the no-fly zone. That effort garnered little support, though other lawmakers -- notably many Republicans -- agreed with Kucinich that the president should have first consulted them before committing U.S. forces to the intervention.
http://www.businessinsider.com/kucinich-nato-commanders-should-be-prosecuted-by-international-criminal-court-2011-8
What a loon.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) = a lunatic moron
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Hey the rebels won and no US boots had to be dirtied. Well done everyone.
We spent a good deal of money, but who cares since we can just keep printing it.
Quote from: derspiess on August 23, 2011, 01:54:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Hey the rebels won and no US boots had to be dirtied. Well done everyone.
We spent a good deal of money, but who cares since we can just keep printing it.
Damn straight.
Quote from: derspiess on August 23, 2011, 01:54:55 PM
We spent a good deal of money, but who cares since we can just keep printing it.
More than we have blown over the years in Yemen and Somalia? At least here we won.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 23, 2011, 01:54:46 PM
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D'OH!) = a lunatic moron
corrected that for you
Somebody needs to explain to these people that bullets do actually come back down.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 23, 2011, 06:28:45 PM
Somebody needs to explain to these people that bullets do actually come back down.
:lol: I was thinking that earlier today. I seem to recall that back when the good people of Baghdad were told about Saddam's capture, there was so much celebratory fire that like 20 people were killed from the falling bullets.
it is only muslims. No biggie.
Quote from: Caliga on August 23, 2011, 06:32:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 23, 2011, 06:28:45 PM
Somebody needs to explain to these people that bullets do actually come back down.
:lol: I was thinking that earlier today. I seem to recall that back when the good people of Baghdad were told about Saddam's capture, there was so much celebratory fire that like 20 people were killed from the falling bullets.
17 people died the day Kuwait City was liberated back in GW1. Morons. Safer to hit shit with their sandals and insult each others' mustaches.
I just watched the Sky News interview with the dude who stole all of Gadhafi's bling. Looked hilarious in Gadhafi's cap and gold chains and carrying his sceptre. :lol:
This interview I have to see. Sounds funny
Quote from: Caliga on August 23, 2011, 09:05:56 PM
I just watched the Sky News interview with the dude who stole all of Gadhafi's bling. Looked hilarious in Gadhafi's cap and gold chains and carrying his sceptre. :lol:
:lol: :lol:
Gadhafi left Gold behind!?!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 23, 2011, 06:28:45 PM
Somebody needs to explain to these people that bullets do actually come back down.
Yes, but they don't come back down at velocities that are typically fatal. Fatalities caused by celebratory gunfire usually occur when someone doesn't shoot straight up, but instead hits something that ricochets back into someone.
I wonder where he is. I'd like to think he saddled up a camel and rode off into the desert, to return sometime when his country needs him most.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2011, 11:56:55 PM
I wonder where he is. I'd like to think he saddled up a camel and rode off into the desert, to return sometime when his country needs him most.
Gaddaffi, Once and Future Colonel!
Quote from: Tyr on August 23, 2011, 09:39:03 PM
This interview I have to see. Sounds funny
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16055646
Here's hoping. :)
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/08/201182493131161406.html
QuoteNTC leader: 'Free elections in eight months'
Mustafa Abdel Jalil promises to end Libya's isolation and build "strong relations with other countries".
Last Modified: 24 Aug 2011 11:10
The leader of Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) has said the new government will hold free elections within eight months and pledged to put Muammar Gaddafi on trial in the country rather than an international court.
In comments published on Wednesday in Italy's La Repubblica newspaper, rebel leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil also promised to open Libya up to the outside world and build "strong relations with other countries".
"In eight months we will hold legislative and presidential elections," said Jalil, chairman of the NTC which now
controls all but isolated pockets of the oil-rich state.
"We want a democratic government and a just constitution. Above all we do not wish to continue to be isolated in the world as we have been up to now," he told the newspaper.
The announcement was praised on Wednesday in Tripoli, where Al Jazeera correspondent Evan Hill spoke to locals about the prospect of free elctions after Gaddafi's more than 40 years in power.
"We are going to buil a new country with the law and with discipline," said Mahmoud Ashour, a 58-year-old shop owner.
Yet Ashour does anticipate a challenging transition to democracy.
"We will have a problem rebuilding. Why? Because the people are not really educated. They don't know about political parties. They haven't had a chance to live in a world with multiple political parties."
"Hopefully this transitional period will eb safe, without blood," he added.
Gaddafi's whereabouts remained unknown on Wednesday after the rebels had overrun his Tripoli compound, but Jalil said he and his inner circle should be captured alive and stand trial in Libya.
"The Gaddafi era is over, even if it will only really end with his capture and his conviction for the crimes he has committed."
The consensus within the NTC was that Gaddafi and his cohorts ishould be judged "in a fair trial, but it must take place in Libya", Jalil told the newspaper.
For that to happen "we need to take them alive and treat them differently from the way the colonel treated his adversaries. He will stay in the memory only for the crimes, the arrests and the political assassinations he carried out", he added.
After a six-month uprising against Gaddafi, who ruled over Libya for 42 years, there were only "pockets of resistance" left in Tripoli, and his troops has retreated to Gaddafi's stronghold port city of Sirte, Jalil said.
He said the "new" Libya "must be a different country from the past, based on the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity," and will have "strong relations with other countries, based on mutual respect and cooperation".
"We will be an active member of the international community and we will respect the treaties signed in the past," he said.
QuoteNTC leader: 'Free elections in eight months'
Will the civil war happen before or after these elections.
Quote from: Caliga on August 23, 2011, 09:05:56 PM
I just watched the Sky News interview with the dude who stole all of Gadhafi's bling. Looked hilarious in Gadhafi's cap and gold chains and carrying his sceptre. :lol:
I saw what must be the same guy, on CNN I think it was. Had Gadhafi's hat, a big necklace or two. This guy was in a t-shirt I think.
Yep.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 24, 2011, 11:57:01 PM
QuoteNTC leader: 'Free elections in eight months'
Will the civil war happen before or after these elections.
Before, after, and during would be my guess.
:D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser5%2Fimageroot%2F2011%2F08%2Fgadaffi.jpg&hash=0ae2aaa371689d3221b3b28599ff6be950203512)
Some of their claims have turned out to be crap, but hey.
Apartments. :yuk:
QuoteLibyan Rebels Rebels Won't Deport Lockerbie Bomber
TRIPOLI, Libya—The Libyan rebel government won't deport the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, its justice minister said.
Associated Press
In this Aug. 20, 2009 file photo, Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was found guilty of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, gestures on his arrival in Tripoli, Libya. The Libyan rebels' interim government says it will not deport the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
New York senators last week asked the Libyan national transitional government to hold Abdel-Baset al-Megrahi fully accountable for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people.
But the transitional government's justice minister, Mohammed al-Alagi, said Sunday in Tripoli that the request by American senators had "no meaning" because Mr. Megrahi had already been tried and convicted.
"We will not hand over any Libyan citizen. It was Gadhafi who handed over Libyan citizens," he said, referring to the government's decision to turn Mr. Megrahi over to a Scottish court for trial.
The Scottish government released Mr. Megrahi in 2009, saying it believed he would soon die of cancer. He was greeted as a hero in his native Libya and met with Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
New York Senator Charles Schumer had encouraged the new Libyan leadership to hold Mr. Megrahi accountable. "A new Libya can send a strong statement to the world by declaring it will no longer be a haven for this convicted terrorist," he said.
Scottish officials overseeing Mr. Megrahi's parole have said they want to contact him now that the fighting between Libyan forces and rebels has reached Tripoli.
Mr. Megrahi is the only person convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Britain's worst terrorist attack. His release after serving eight years of a life sentence infuriated the families of many victims, who suspected Britain's real motive was to improve relations with oil-rich Libya.
Mr. Megrahi's current whereabouts are unknown, and on Saturday no one answered the door of his villa, hidden behind high walls in an upscale Tripoli neighborhood. A neighbor, Yousef Mohammed, said he saw Mr. Megrahi's son in the street on Friday and assumed the family hadn't left the area.
No private guards or rebel fighters were visible in the quiet side street of walled villas. The neighbor, said he often saw Mr. Megrahi in the neighborhood. "This guy is sick. All the time, I saw him" in the heelchair, he said.
Mr. Mohammed said that he and other neighbors didn't believe Mr. Megrahi was involved in the Lockerbie bombing and that the family was well liked in the neighborhood.
lolz.
The Serbs said the same thing about Slobodon. They aren't going to give him away. I suspect they will be willing to sell him though. They better hurry up, before the guy drops dead though.
I wish poor Chuck would get over his pathological fear of speaking to the press.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2011, 05:29:28 PM
The Serbs said the same thing about Slobodon. They aren't going to give him away. I suspect they will be willing to sell him though. They better hurry up, before the guy drops dead though.
Obama paid enough already. We should steal their frozen assets as compensation.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 28, 2011, 05:26:09 PM
Mr. Mohammed said that he and other neighbors didn't believe Mr. Megrahi was involved in the Lockerbie bombing and that the family was well liked in the neighborhood.
lolz.
[/quote]
Tribal dune coons will be tribal dune coons, no matter who's in charge.
Well I'm atomistic that they'll pull through.
If even a small proportion of the atrocity stories turn out to be true, then I think Cameron and Sarkozy were right to intervene when they did to stop war crimes being committed in Benghazi.
That's not to say the rebels have committed summary executions, these terrible things happen in civil wars, but it seems to be the magnitude of, and deliberated nature of what the pro-Gaddafi forces have done to civilians in recent days, marks the regime out as worst offender.
Terrible, but not surprising :(
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/28/evidence-gaddafi-men-bloody-revenge
Quote...Marwan said that in the chaotic final hours of the war, Gaddafi loyalists had conducted bloody reprisals against the local civilian population.
He said he found three bodies of prisoners who had been locked in a shipping container; all had suffocated. Another body washed up on the beach. The victim had his hands tied, and had been shot.
"Some of the people here are just children. What we need to do now is rehabilitate them, teach them right from wrong," Marwan said.
There are several other haunting massacre sites across Tripoli; bringing the perpetrators to justice is an almost impossible task.
Many were executed last Sunday or Monday as the rebels advanced into the capital and an uprising began inside it. Gaddafi loyalists shot 17 detainees held in an internal security building in the Gargur area. The victims were killed minutes before they would have been freed.
One survivor, Osama al-Swayi, told Human Rights Watch that 25 people had been held inside the prison. He said he heard the rebels shouting and expected to be released; his captors, however, ordered him and the others out of their cells and told them to lie on the floor. "I saw three dark men. One soldier gave the order: 'Just finish them off.' But I don't know who it was. There were three or four who fired at us ... I was near the corner and got hit in the right hand, the right foot, and the right shoulder. In one instant they finished off all the people with me," he said.
Another 18 bodies were found rotting in a dry riverbed between Gargur and Gaddafi's shattered compound at Bab al-Aziziya – further evidence of apparent war crimes. Some 50 charred bodies were also discovered in a military camp in Tripoli held by Gaddafi's supporters.
"The evidence we have been able to gather so far strongly suggests that Gaddafi government forces went on a spate of arbitrary killing as Tripoli was falling," Sarah Leah Whitson, Human Rights Watch's North Africa director, said in a statement.
She added: "These incidents, which may represent only a fraction of the total, raise grave questions about the conduct of Gaddafi forces ... If they are proven to be extrajudicial killings they are serious war crimes and those responsible should be brought to justice."
Given the population of the country, 50,000 is a larger number than I anticipated though :(
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8728537/Libya-Up-to-50000-people-imprisoned-by-Gaddafi-regime-are-missing-rebels-claim.html
QuoteLibya: Up to 50,000 people imprisoned by Gaddafi regime are missing, rebels claim
Up to 50,000 people imprisoned by the Gaddafi regime are missing, it has emerged, as evidence mounts of war crimes committed by the former leader's retreating soldiers.
By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
9:55PM BST 28 Aug 2011
Rebel leaders estimate that 60,000 opponents of the ousted dictator have been jailed since the insurgency began in February, but with most of Libya now rebel hands, only 11,000 have been freed.
Mass executions of opposition forces are being uncovered on a daily basis, and human rights groups fear the total number of prisoners murdered by the retreating loyalists, already in the scores, could escalate sharply.
Over the weekend the charred remains of at least 53 people were found in a warehouse where they appeared to have been executed by the Khamis Brigade, Libya's most feared military unit. A further 18 bodies were discovered decomposing in a nearby ditch by a Daily Telegraph reporter yesterday.
Col Ahmed Omar Bani, a rebel military leader, said: "The number of people arrested over the past months is estimated at between 57,000 and 60,000.
"Between 10,000 and 11,000 prisoners have been freed up until now ... so where are the others?"
One theory is that the prisoners are being held in underground bunkers which have not yet been discovered, but Col Bani said it would be "catastrophic" if they had been killed.
Many of those who were imprisoned were captured rebel fighters, but thousands more were civilians suspected of supporting the revolution who were rounded up in a series of security crackdowns.
Human Rights Watch said it had gathered evidence that pro-Gaddafi forces had carried out "arbitrary executions of dozens of civilians" before Tripoli fell to the rebels.
One man who said three of his sons were among those executed in the Khamis Brigade warehouse told the BBC that up to 150 civilians were packed into the building, guarded by mercenaries.
"They promised them water at sunset but came with guns instead," he said. "They started shooting, then they threw in hand grenades, three of them."
Eyewitness accounts of loyalists opening fire on prisoners is likely to be presented to the International Criminal Court if and when members of the Gaddafi member are captured and sent there for war crimes trials.
Meanwhile Gaddafi's spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, said the fugitive dictator was willing to take part in negotiations for the formation of a transitional government.
The offer was dismissed as "delusional" by William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, while Libya's National Transitional Council dismissed the suggestion of talks as "a daydream of what remains of the dictatorship".
Mahmoud Shammam, the NTC's information minister, said: "I would like to state very clearly, we don't recognize them. We are looking at them as criminals. We are going to arrest them very soon."
The whereabouts of Gaddafi and his family are still unknown, though Libya is filled with rumours that they have fled to Zimbabwe, Algeria or even Europe.
The coastal town of Bin Jawwad, around 60 miles east of Sirte, was the latest to fall to the opposition yesterday, and with loyalist forces almost defeated in Tripoli, the rebels were massing on the outskirts of Sirte, Gaddafi's home town and his main remaining stronghold, to begin a ground assault following a weekend of bombardment by Nato air strikes.
One of the biggest problems facing the interim government is a shortage of food, water and electricity supplies in Tripoli.
Usama el-Abed, the deputy leader of the new city council, said that between 60 and 70 per cent of the capital's residents do not have enough water, but he added that the shortages are due to technical problems, which he hopes will soon be fixed, not sabotage by loyalist forces.
The United Nations is preparing to ship in baby food, bottled water and medicine, while World Health Organization officials are on Malta to arrange aid shipments which should arrive in Libya later this week.
But there were also encouraging signs of normality beginning to return to the streets of Tripoli, with traffic policemen in their distinctive white uniforms returning to duty.
One of the officers, Abu Bakr al-Murbet, said: "Today is the first day that we started working. Things are under control and running smoothly."
The rebel-controlled AGOCO oil company said it would re-start production at its Sarir and Mesla fields in a fortnight and expected to begin exports by the end of September, providing much-needed funds for the interim government.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 28, 2011, 08:01:29 PM
Given the population of the country, 50,000 is a larger number than I anticipated though :(
Where'd you anticipate it from, your think tank command center?
It is nice to see something turn out the way we hoped. It is far from perfect, but it could never have happened at all without US and European intervention.
Now we have to figure out how to help make an oil rich country into a functioning democracy, or something close to it. The track record is pretty terrible.
Now, if those NATO warplanes could only bomb Assad's compound on their way home. It would be a terrible idea for NATO to get involved in Syria, but it would be a good idea nonetheless.
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2011, 06:51:29 PM
Well I'm atomistic that they'll pull through.
If even a small proportion of the atrocity stories turn out to be true, then I think Cameron and Sarkozy were right to intervene when they did to stop war crimes being committed in Benghazi.
That's not to say the rebels have committed summary executions, these terrible things happen in civil wars, but it seems to be the magnitude of, and deliberated nature of what the pro-Gaddafi forces have done to civilians in recent days, marks the regime out as worst offender.
Bah. If you're under the impression that the rebels don't have a list of folks they're planning on slaughtering you're just naive.
Gaddafi's forces were absolutely right to use force against Benghazi.
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2011, 10:06:46 PM
It is nice to see something turn out the way we hoped. It is far from perfect, but it could never have happened at all without US and European intervention.
Now we have to figure out how to help make an oil rich country into a functioning democracy, or something close to it. The track record is pretty terrible.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2011, 10:06:46 PM
It is nice to see something turn out the way we hoped. It is far from perfect, but it could never have happened at all without US and European intervention.
I think you mean European and US intervention.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2011, 11:14:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2011, 10:06:46 PM
It is nice to see something turn out the way we hoped. It is far from perfect, but it could never have happened at all without US and European intervention.
I think you mean European and US intervention.
Isn't it the same?
Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2011, 11:18:06 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2011, 11:14:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2011, 10:06:46 PM
It is nice to see something turn out the way we hoped. It is far from perfect, but it could never have happened at all without US and European intervention.
I think you mean European and US intervention.
Isn't it the same?
Comme dirait mon grand-père, on fait ce qu'on peut, mais il y a la manière.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2011, 11:14:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2011, 10:06:46 PM
It is nice to see something turn out the way we hoped. It is far from perfect, but it could never have happened at all without US and European intervention.
I think you mean European and US intervention.
Believe me, I am all for the Euroes getting shit done. I would be even happier if was just "European intervention".
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2011, 11:29:25 PMI would be even happier if was just "European intervention".
:yes:
Quote from: 11B4V on August 24, 2011, 11:57:01 PM
QuoteNTC leader: 'Free elections in eight months'
Will the civil war happen before or after these elections.
I don't think Libya has a basis for a civil war. It's tribal but not sectarian. It's not Iraq.
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2011, 10:06:46 PM
Now we have to figure out how to help make an oil rich country into a functioning democracy, or something close to it. The track record is pretty terrible.
As long as we avoid the pitfalls and horrors of Texas, the example of Alberta or Norway is mildly encouraging.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2011, 08:57:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 28, 2011, 08:01:29 PM
Given the population of the country, 50,000 is a larger number than I anticipated though :(
Where'd you anticipate it from, your think tank command center?
Don't bitch at me 'cause you got stuck in one for the last two days.
Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2011, 01:27:56 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 24, 2011, 11:57:01 PM
QuoteNTC leader: 'Free elections in eight months'
Will the civil war happen before or after these elections.
I don't think Libya has a basis for a civil war. It's tribal but not sectarian. It's not Iraq.
I hope your right. I believe it when I see it.
Apparently, most of Qaddafi's tribe is still fighting furiously against totally overwhelming odds. This is an indication that tribal divisions are more than enough to trigger civil war (also we have human history as an other indication for that).
As for democratizing, I was wondering about this in case of Afghanistan as well: why are we trying to enforce the exact kind of democracy the west had, which it had after half a millenia of vastly different route of advancement than them muslims? Why not try to come up with something like, say, a tribal federation, where the de facto senate would be tribal delegates or somesuch?
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2011, 02:22:53 AM
Apparently, most of Qaddafi's tribe is still fighting furiously against totally overwhelming odds. This is an indication that tribal divisions are more than enough to trigger civil war (also we have human history as an other indication for that).
As for democratizing, I was wondering about this in case of Afghanistan as well: why are we trying to enforce the exact kind of democracy the west had, which it had after half a millenia of vastly different route of advancement than them muslims? Why not try to come up with something like, say, a tribal federation, where the de facto senate would be tribal delegates or somesuch?
If the tribes are geograhically concentrated, what's the difference?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 29, 2011, 01:35:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2011, 08:57:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 28, 2011, 08:01:29 PM
Given the population of the country, 50,000 is a larger number than I anticipated though :(
Where'd you anticipate it from, your think tank command center?
Don't bitch at me 'cause you got stuck in one for the last two days.
It's more of a lair.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2011, 03:39:50 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2011, 02:22:53 AM
Apparently, most of Qaddafi's tribe is still fighting furiously against totally overwhelming odds. This is an indication that tribal divisions are more than enough to trigger civil war (also we have human history as an other indication for that).
As for democratizing, I was wondering about this in case of Afghanistan as well: why are we trying to enforce the exact kind of democracy the west had, which it had after half a millenia of vastly different route of advancement than them muslims? Why not try to come up with something like, say, a tribal federation, where the de facto senate would be tribal delegates or somesuch?
If the tribes are geograhically concentrated, what's the difference?
The traditional tribal leaderships wouldn't feel threatened?
The lack of news despite the major action on the ground annoys me.
Tripoli needs an earfquake or a hurricane.
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2011, 02:22:53 AM
As for democratizing, I was wondering about this in case of Afghanistan as well: why are we trying to enforce the exact kind of democracy the west had, which it had after half a millenia of vastly different route of advancement than them muslims? Why not try to come up with something like, say, a tribal federation, where the de facto senate would be tribal delegates or somesuch?
This has happened in Somaliland. They've an elected House of Representatives - though the three parties are associated with clans - and a House of Elders which is indirectly elected from the clan leadership.
They've had a number of free and fair-ish elections and a peaceful transfer of power from one party to other in both the House of Representatives and President.
I'm actually reasonably hopeful with Libya.
Quote from: Tyr on August 29, 2011, 05:38:33 AM
The lack of news despite the major action on the ground annoys me.
Supposedly Tripoli has been completely conquered as of yesterday. I'm sure there will be further guerrilla activity there, though.
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2011, 02:22:53 AMAs for democratizing, I was wondering about this in case of Afghanistan as well: why are we trying to enforce the exact kind of democracy the west had, which it had after half a millenia of vastly different route of advancement than them muslims? Why not try to come up with something like, say, a tribal federation, where the de facto senate would be tribal delegates or somesuch?
Does the West play a big role in how Lybian institutions are set up now? I thought it was mainly sympathy and in some cases support, instead of active "nation building".
Quote from: Zanza on August 29, 2011, 05:53:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2011, 02:22:53 AMAs for democratizing, I was wondering about this in case of Afghanistan as well: why are we trying to enforce the exact kind of democracy the west had, which it had after half a millenia of vastly different route of advancement than them muslims? Why not try to come up with something like, say, a tribal federation, where the de facto senate would be tribal delegates or somesuch?
Does the West play a big role in how Lybian institutions are set up now? I thought it was mainly sympathy and in some cases support, instead of active "nation building".
I am not sure how Lybia will go. But public 1st world opinion will probably consider anything but western democracy as sub-optimal, and this should not be encouraged by politicans. A liveable regime with free trade with Europe would be well enough, as free trade equals free flow of culture and information, which will help immensely the advancement of society.
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2011, 06:35:44 AMI am not sure how Lybia will go. But public 1st world opinion will probably consider anything but western democracy as sub-optimal, and this should not be encouraged by politicans. A liveable regime with free trade with Europe would be well enough, as free trade equals free flow of culture and information, which will help immensely the advancement of society.
I doubt it.
If the Western public had been fed a steady diet for years of "we're sacrificing blood and money to bring democracy to the Libyans" and if there'd continuous political posturing about less-than-perfect democracy being unacceptable on an ideological level, then maybe that'd be what the public would expect and demand.
But as it stands, I'm pretty sure that the public - insofar as it cares about Libya at all - will mostly be happy with "we helped them out a bit, the system is measurably better though not perfect and we get some actual goodwill from what we did."
I mean, of course there'll be some die-hard anti-establishment types who'll go on about imperialism and so on, but they're never happy anyways. There'll also be some people who'll be unhappy because their primary objective is to bash someone domestically, but that too is inevitable.
Let's see if they do manage to find some WMD's in Libya. Fool me once, shame on you...
Shocking!
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/29/libya.algeria.gadhafi/
QuoteGadhafi family members in Algeria, ambassador says
By the CNN Wire Staff
August 30, 2011 -- Updated 0104 GMT (0904 HKT)
(CNN) -- The wife of fugitive Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi, three of his children and some of his grandchildren arrived in Algeria on Monday morning, Algerian diplomats said.
Mourad Benmehidi, the Algerian ambassador to the United Nations, said he relayed the news to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon earlier Monday. Benmehidi said his country granted entrance to Gadhafi's wife, Safia, his daughter, Aisha, sons Hannibal and Mohamed and their children on "humanitarian grounds."
"We made sure the international community has been informed," said Benmehidi.
The ambassador said he did not know whether Moammar Gadhafi was expected to seek entry into Algeria and claimed none of the Gadhafis were subject to U.N. Security Council sanctions.
In fact, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970, passed on February 26, includes the names of all three Gadhafi children who are now in Algeria as being subject to a "travel ban" because of their "closeness of association with (the) regime."
The U.N. ban requires "all member states" to prevent them and others listed from entering their territories, unless there is some special circumstance that the council agrees warrants an exception. The resolution also allows the nation -- in this case, Algeria -- to determine "on a case-by-case basis that such entry or transit is required to advance peace and stability (and) notifies the committee within 48 hours after making such a determination."
Gadhafi family members in Algeria
Meet the Gadhafi family
What's next for Libya?
Captives executed in Libya
RELATED TOPICS
* Moammar Gadhafi
* Libya
* Algeria
News on Monday of the Gadhafi relatives' departure from Libya came the same day that a senior rebel commander reported that Khamis Gadhafi, a son of the Libyan leader and military commander in his regime, had been killed Sunday night.
Mahdi al-Harati, the vice chairman of the rebels' Military Council, the military wing of the National Transitional Council, said Khamis Gadhafi died in a battle with rebel forces between the villages of Tarunah and Bani Walid in northwest Libya.
Khamis Gadhafi, who was a senior military commander under his father, was taken to a hospital where he died from his injuries, said al-Harati. He was then buried in the area by rebel forces, al-Harati said.
His father, Moammar Gadhafi, meanwhile, is still wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague on charges of war crimes. So, too, is Moammar's son Saif al-Islam Gadhafi and his brother-in-law and intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Sanussi.
But should any of those three get to Algeria, there is no guarantee they would face trial. Algeria is not a signatory of the Rome Treaty that established the International Criminal Court.
The longtime ruler's whereabouts have been a mystery since the rebels overran Tripoli last week. Rebel commanders said Gadhafi was not found in the network of tunnels beneath his Bab al-Aziziya compound, and reports that he had been holed up in an apartment block nearby or at a farm near Tripoli's airport didn't pan out.
The National Transitional Council, which is forming a provisional government in Tripoli since overrunning the city last week, has not yet confirmed the news about Gadhafi's family members, spokesman Mahmoud al-Shammam told CNN. But he said that if true, the NTC would demand the return of the family members. He promised they would receive a fair trial.
The rebels had previously speculated that Gadhafi could be trying to reach Algeria or Libya's southern neighbor Chad, both countries with which his government had close ties.
"Those are the only two neighboring countries that have been showing support for him," Guma El-Gamaty, an NTC official based in Britain, said last week.
In London, Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office said the fate of Gadhafi's relatives "is a matter for the NTC." In Washington, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters the United States has no indication Gadhafi has left Libya.
U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland added that what's important is that Gadhafi and his relatives, wherever they are, are held accountable.
"We want to see justice and accountability for Gadhafi and those members of his family with blood on their hands and those members of his regime with blood on their hands," Nuland said. "But it'll be a decision of the Libyan people, (as to) how that goes forward."
Algeria, which the CIA World Factbook says has a population of 35 million, repeatedly has been mentioned as a possible destination for Gadhafi and his family. Guma El-Gamaty, the Britain-based coordinator for Libya's National Transitional Council, said earlier this month that Algeria and Chad "are the only two neighboring countries that have been showing support for him."
Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted similarities between Libya under Gadhafi and Algeria, with a largely oil-driven economy and strong central government under President Abdelaziz Bouteflika "that is concerned with popular uprisings."
"My sense is that Algeria was supportive, in part, because they had worked out a modus vivendi (or, practical compromise) with Gadhafi and they feared the contagion of mass popular unrest in the region," Alterman said.
Yet while many nations in Africa had determined "it was easier to manage (Gadhafi) than to defeat him," especially when he shared some oil-derived wealth around the continent, Alterman said he finds it unlikely any nation will now risk international scorn by taking in the embattled leader himself -- or that Gadhafi would ever leave Libya.
Of Gadhafi's family members now in Algeria, Aisha Gadhafi was a good will ambassador for the U.N. Development Program and has kept a low profile during the six-month revolt against her father. She had been named to the position in 2009 to address HIV/AIDS and violence against women in Libya, but U.N. officials terminated her position as Gadhafi unleashed his military on anti-government protesters early in the conflict.
She is due to give birth in early September, sources close to her family told CNN.
Hannibal Gadhafi is a headline maker. He has reportedly paid millions of dollars for private parties featuring big-name entertainers including Beyonce, Mariah Carey and Usher. Several of the artists now say they have given the money back.
Rebels who picked through his seaside villa on Sunday also introduced CNN's Dan Rivers to his family's badly burned former nanny, who said she had been doused with boiling water by his wife, model Aline Skaf, when she refused to beat one of their crying toddlers.
The nanny, Shweyga Mullah, is covered with scars from the abuse, which was corroborated by another member of the household staff.
Hannibal was also accused of a string of violent incidents in Europe, including beating his staff and his wife. Charges were dropped in the case of his staff, and Skaf later said her broken nose was the result of an accident.
In another high-profile episode, Hannibal was stopped after driving his Ferrari 90 mph the wrong way on the Champs-Elysees in Paris. He invoked diplomatic immunity.
Mohamed Gadhafi, meanwhile, was one of three Gadhafi sons who had been reported captured as the rebels overran Tripoli last week. But the rebels said he had escaped the next day.
al-Arming.
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2011, 06:35:44 AMI am not sure how Lybia will go. But public 1st world opinion will probably consider anything but western democracy as sub-optimal, and this should not be encouraged by politicans. A liveable regime with free trade with Europe would be well enough, as free trade equals free flow of culture and information, which will help immensely the advancement of society.
People don't care about the rest of the world. Also in Libya we've only expended treasure (the Libyans expended the blood) which makes it more abstract to most people who barely noticed the war was going on, grudgingly supported it because we generally support our boys and the decision had been made. Now the war's more or less finished it will be greeted with broad indifference as will the rest of Libya's future. Libya as a war will be like Yemen as an Arab uprising: confusing, protracted and easily ignored.
Attentive British people who read the Telegraph will probably add getting rid of Qadafi to their list of things 'the world should thank us for, but won't' (top of the list is usually abolishing slavery or Indian railways) but that'll be about it in terms of anyone caring.
Westerwelle Faces Isolation Within His Party
Quote
BERLIN (Reuters) - Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle faced ridicule across Germany and even within his own party Friday for stating that it was chiefly U.N.-imposed economic sanctions that led to the downfall of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi.
In remarks this week, Westerwelle stressed that it was the sanctions -- rather than rebel forces and NATO air support-- that brought down the Libyan strongman. His comments were trashed in Germany, even by some in his Free Democrats.
"The sanctions and the international isolation were of great importance -- that is what prevented Gaddafi's regime from getting fresh supplies," Westerwelle said.
Germany angered its allies in March for abstaining in a U.N. Security Council vote authorising military enforcement of no-fly-zone over Libya.
Westerwelle had been on the defensive for that decision ever since with critics accusing him and Chancellor Angela Merkel of breaking ranks with partners in NATO for domestic political reasons -- especially regional elections in March.
Even during the months'-long NATO campaign in Libya, Westerwelle expressed doubts about the use of force -- which can be a popular stance among generally anti-war Germans.
But that backfired this time. His party was defeated in the elections and opinion polls showed many were concerned about Germany isolating itself over Libya.
UNPOPULAR, CONTROVERSIAL
Westerwelle has been the most unpopular foreign minister in the country's post-war history. His FDP party has plunged in the opinion polls and he was forced to give up the party's leadership this year.
Westerwelle, Germany's first openly gay minister, also ran into criticism for conflict of interest for taking his partner, a German businessman, on several of his official trips abroad.
Westerwelle said this week he believed that abstaining from the Security Council vote was still the right decision to make and added he would do it again.
Friday, amid growing media criticism of Westerwelle, Merkel's spokesman Christoph Steegmans supported Westerwelle's view of events. He said at a news conference that Merkel is "in complete agreement with the Foreign Minister's comments."
When later asked if Merkel specifically backed Westerwelle's remarks on the sanctions being decisive, Steegmans added: "Things that are self-evident do not need to be expressed."
Steegmans added: "There is no foundation to all the talk about Germany going off on its own or being isolated."
He also pointed out that Germany, which had chaired the U.N. Security Council earlier this year, played a vital role in getting sanctions imposed against Libya.
Westerwelle was nevertheless assailed by a former leader of his own Free Democrats, ex-Interior Minister Gerhard Baum: "Westerwelle's abstention doctrine has caused major damage. Now his constant harping that it was sanctions that brought down the regime sounds like an arrogant know-it-all."
The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung quoted a member of parliament in the ruling centre-right coalition saying Westerwelle's comments were "a huge embarrassment."
Ruprecht Polenz, chairman of the parliament's foreign policy committee and a leader in Merkel's CDU, also said it would have been wiser if Westerwelle had not made those remarks.
"One should have said 'fortunately our concerns turned out to be wrong and we're delighted about that -- and we're happy for our allies and obviously happy for the Libyan people'," Polenz told Deutschlandfunk radio Friday.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FoivVOgJifJfQ1PWiZbp4HA--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMzQ7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Fgettyimages.com%2Fwesterwelle-faces-isolation-within-party-20110829-062112-568.jpg&hash=57412c09c9f6a99980ed10b5b579b92c1d8012c9)
BERLIN, GERMANY - AUGUST 29: German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle (C) and French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe (across) hold talks on a boat on the Spree river on August 29, 2011 in Berlin, Germany. The two men discussed stability of the Euro and the current situation in Libya, among other matters. Westerwelle is currently under increasing pressure from ranks within his own party, the German Free Democrats (FDP), many of whom see him as a liability following Westerwelle's reluctance to acknowledge the role of NATO in helping the rebels in Libya defeat forces loyal to Moamer Gaddafi. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
That article seems mighty tendentious. My understanding was that Westerwelle had already had to stand down as party chairman, that the FDP have been barely polling above 5% since the election and that his main purpose now is to make Nick Clegg the face of popular European liberalism.
Quote from: citizen k on August 29, 2011, 08:52:34 PM
Westerwelle, Germany's first openly gay minister
I think I've discovered the problems.
Quote from: Jacob on August 29, 2011, 11:42:20 AM
I mean, of course there'll be some die-hard anti-establishment types who'll go on about imperialism and so on, but they're never happy anyways. There'll also be some people who'll be unhappy because their primary objective is to bash someone domestically, but that too is inevitable.
Then there are those of us who don't understand why we're dumping so many $$ on adventures like this when we're flat broke. I still can't figure out how it advanced the US's national interest.
Especially since Gadaffi had pretty much been neutralized.
I get the appeal of trolling with homophobia because of Martinus, but considering that a number of the most respected posters here (Sheilbh, formerly Top Cat) are at the very least somewhere on that spectrum, it still seems a bit dickish.
I like Sheilbh, I just wouldn't trust him with state secrets or elect him to public office. Although that also might be because he's farther to the left than I am and because I know that he doesn't have proper attitude towards the public.
And Gaddafi's son Khamis Gaddafi has yet again been declared dead by the rebels. It's the 5th time they declare him dead, this time is he said to have been in an armoured Toyota Land Cruiser hit by a missile apparently launched from a Nato Apache helicopter. Last was it that he had burn to dead after his Toyota had been hit by a RPG-7 round...
He must resemble something like a very crispy burned zombie by now...
Quote from: Queequeg on August 29, 2011, 09:54:17 PM
I get the appeal of trolling with homophobia because of Martinus, but considering that a number of the most respected posters here (Sheilbh, formerly Top Cat) are at the very least somewhere on that spectrum, it still seems a bit dickish.
Man up. They are big boys and can take it. Christ. You'll start crying next.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 30, 2011, 12:49:19 AM
And Gaddafi's son Khamis Gaddafi has yet again been declared dead by the rebels. It's the 5th time they declare him dead, this time is he said to have been in an armoured Toyota Land Cruiser hit by a missile apparently launched from a Nato Apache helicopter. Last was it that he had burn to dead after his Toyota had been hit by a RPG-7 round...
He must resemble something like a very crispy burned zombie by now...
He just has a very good priest in his group. :)
Quote from: Queequeg on August 29, 2011, 09:54:17 PM
I get the appeal of trolling with homophobia because of Martinus, but considering that a number of the most respected posters here (Sheilbh, formerly Top Cat) are at the very least somewhere on that spectrum, it still seems a bit dickish.
But Neil is definitely somewhere on the "a bit dickish" spectrum, so that works out ok.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 29, 2011, 09:54:17 PM
I get the appeal of trolling with homophobia because of Martinus, but considering that a number of the most respected posters here (Sheilbh, formerly Top Cat) are at the very least somewhere on that spectrum, it still seems a bit dickish.
It's not trolling when you really hate fags.
V: L Day! :)
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/scenes-new-libyan-leaders-triumphant-tripoli-speech/42383/
QuoteScenes from the New Libyan Leader's Triumphant Tripoli Speech
Uri Friedman Sep 12, 2011 46 Views Comment
In an emotional scene in Tripoli this evening, the head of Libya's National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, addressed a celebratory rally in Martyrs' Square (known as Green Square during the Qaddafi era). Jalil, a former justice minister who defected to the rebels early on in the uprising, arrived in Tripoli on Saturday after months of orchestrating the revolt against Muammar Qaddafi from Benghazi in the east. According to a live translation by NPR's Ahmed Al Omran, Jalil called for national unity, promised to provide basic services, the rule of law, and democratic institutions, and rejected retribution and Islamic extremism. Here he is in the middle of the picture below, raising his hands in victory:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlanticwire.com%2Fimg%2Fupload%2F2011%2F09%2F12%2FMustafa%2520Abdel%2520Jalil%2520Getty%25202.JPG&hash=839c89d519e27e56aca6d0693c1aa24f397384e3)
The crowd was equally exuberant:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlanticwire.com%2Fimg%2Fupload%2F2011%2F09%2F12%2FMustafa%2520Abdel%2520Jalil%2520Getty%25203.JPG&hash=37c66d27133815b9ed57d483a169cab3db0aa0fe)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlanticwire.com%2Fimg%2Fupload%2F2011%2F09%2F12%2FMustafa%2520Abdel%2520Jalil%2520Getty%25205.JPG&hash=baea345f8f2ef5e4e78ca1fd734d8e29f13d6ed1)
And there were fireworks:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlanticwire.com%2Fimg%2Fupload%2F2011%2F09%2F12%2FMustafa%2520Abdel%2520Jalil%2520Getty%25204.JPG&hash=93db4d30186062fe47b6be2baddaa8a019477aba)
Al Jazeera also has video of Jalil's red-carpet welcome at Tripoli's Metiga Airport on Saturday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8GQwCuhDFA
But despite the euphoria, Libya's new leaders still face significant obstacles. Muammar Qaddafi is still at large and his loyalists are continuing to put up resistance in Bani Walid, Sirte, and Sabha. The AP adds that Islamic conservatives are currently vying for power with more secular technocrats, as Jalil, the "sole figure in the leadership who enjoys almost universal support," remains stuck in the middle. The AP explains that the secular camp is headed by Mahmoud Jibril, the U.S.-educated acting prime minister who served briefly in the Qaddafi regime and spent a lot of time overseas meeting with foreign leaders during the civil war. The Islamists hail from groups like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Muslim Brotherhood, which were oppressed under Qaddafi. The faction, whose most prominent member is Tripoli military council commander Abdel-Hakim Belhaj, controls the main military force in Tripoli and is calling for Jibril's resignation. Still, the AP adds that "the disputes for now appear to be primarily over personnel, and not deeply rooted in ideology."
Apparently Jalil's a remarkable speaker by Arab leader standards, especially in comparison to Gadaffi. He apparently uses quite short, succinct sentences, isn't terribly patronising and generally finishes in under 2 hours.
I read a profile of him and he's an interesting and pretty impressive guy. I think that was in WSJ but I can't remember.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2011, 08:11:01 AM
Apparently Jalil's a remarkable speaker by Arab leader standards, especially in comparison to Gadaffi. He apparently uses quite short, succinct sentences, isn't terribly patronising and generally finishes in under 2 hours.
I read a profile of him and he's an interesting and pretty impressive guy. I think that was in WSJ but I can't remember.
You mean the days of Libya's turn at the mic resulting in long, rambling anti-semitic speeches where the mic needs to be cut are over? The UN just got so much less interesting. :weep:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 13, 2011, 09:48:10 AMYou mean the days of Libya's turn at the mic resulting in long, rambling anti-semitic speeches where the mic needs to be cut are over? The UN just got so much less interesting. :weep:
Indeed. Now we'll never know who shot JFK :(
Edit: And to give Gadaffi credit he wasn't simply anti-semitic. His Isratine suggestion is still one of the most creative peace proposals the Mid-East's ever seen.
Thank you France and the UK for not being a bunch of pussies and refusing to support change in a dictatorship.
And thanks to Canada as well for their normal token contribution. :P
What is it with Arabs and shooting fireworks into the air on festive occasions?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2011, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 13, 2011, 09:48:10 AMYou mean the days of Libya's turn at the mic resulting in long, rambling anti-semitic speeches where the mic needs to be cut are over? The UN just got so much less interesting. :weep:
Indeed. Now we'll never know who shot JFK :(
Edit: And to give Gadaffi credit he wasn't simply anti-semitic. His Isratine suggestion is still one of the most creative peace proposals the Mid-East's ever seen.
A jewish homeland in Alsace-Moselle instead of Palestine is sure creative :lol:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 13, 2011, 10:20:09 AM
A jewish homeland in Alsace-Moselle instead of Palestine is sure creative :lol:
Back when they called it Lebensraum, sure. :P
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2011, 10:18:25 AM
Thank you France and the UK for not being a bunch of pussies and refusing to support change in a dictatorship.
And thanks to Canada as well for their normal token contribution. :P
Well, Sarkozy is full of shit, but it's hard not to see the upside these days. We'll see how it turns out.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 13, 2011, 12:18:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2011, 10:18:25 AM
Thank you France and the UK for not being a bunch of pussies and refusing to support change in a dictatorship.
And thanks to Canada as well for their normal token contribution. :P
Well, Sarkozy is full of shit, but it's hard not to see the upside these days. We'll see how it turns out.
Yeah, there certainly are no guarantees.
At least at this point if Libya ends up all fucked up they won't have anyone to blame but themselves.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2011, 10:19:35 AM
What is it with Arabs and shooting fireworks into the air on festive occasions?
Because of this?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent9.flixster.com%2Fphoto%2F10%2F33%2F81%2F10338167_gal.jpg&hash=0e3d94a2e0ce6e6838b9d100642ed0564d2cce64)
:hmm:
Quote
Libyan Jew blocked from Tripoli synagogue
David Gerbi, a returned exile, finds synagogue shut again a day after he forced it open and says he received threats
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 October 2011 03.23 EDT
A Libyan Jewish man who returned from exile in Italy to join the revolution against Muammar Gaddafi has been blocked from trying to restore Tripoli's main synagogue.
David Gerbi said he went to clean rubbish from the building on Monday, a day after he broke through the entrance with a sledgehammer to great fanfare. A messenger at the scene warned him, however, that armed men were coming from all over Libya and would target him if he did not leave the area.
Gerbi said he was told a mass anti-Jewish demonstration was planned for Friday in Martrys' Square, which used to be named Green Square under Gaddafi's regime.
Breaking down in tears, he criticised Libyan authorities for withdrawing their support, calling his efforts a test of the post-Gaddafi regime's commitment to democracy and tolerance.
"If they want to prove that it's different from Gaddafi ... they need to do the opposite," Gerbi told reporters after leaving the synagogue in Tripoli's walled Old City.
The head of the National Transitional Council that is governing Libya was dismissive when asked about Gerbi at a news conference, saying it was too early to worry about rebuilding a synagogue when revolutionary forces were still fighting Gaddafi supporters.
"This matter is premature and we have not decided anything in this regard," Mustafa Abdul-Jalil said. "Everyone who holds Libyan nationality has the right to enjoy all rights, provided that he has no other nationality but Libyan."
Libyan-born Gina Bublil-Waldman, president of the San Francisco-based Jimena, or Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa, agreed it was too soon to try to return.
"I really do not believe that the Libyan people are ready to reconcile with the past and their history and the wrongs that they have done to the Jewish community," she said, although she called Gerbi's efforts sincere and honourable.
Gerbi, who fled with his family to Italy in 1967, said he was surprised because he had permission from the local sheik and verbal permission from NTC representatives. Gerbi's colleague Richard Peters said several men armed with assault rifles later appeared to guard the building, although none were visible later that day.
It was not clear who was ultimately behind the warnings of violence against Gerbi, although he said the man who gave him the message said there was a Facebook and YouTube campaign against him.
It was a bitter disappointment for Gerbi, coming a day after he had taken a sledgehammer to a concrete wall and entered the crumbling Dar al-Bishi synagogue, which has been filled with decades of rubbish since Gaddafi expelled Libya's small Jewish community early in his rule.
He and a team of helpers carted in brooms, rakes and plastic buckets to begin clearing the debris. But on Monday, the wooden door was again closed with a chain and padlock. Gerbi said people who had supported him were now distancing themselves.
The 56-year-old psychoanalyst appealed to the new leadership to set an example of tolerance, saying that while Gaddafi "wanted to eliminate the diversity, they need to include the diversity".
Libya's new leaders have promised to lead the oil-rich North African country to become a democracy after toppling Gaddafi in a civil war that began in mid-February. Abdul-Jalil and the de facto prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril, promised on Monday to step down after the country is fully secured in a bid to reassure the public they will not suffer under another dictatorship.
Gerbi's family fled to Rome in 1967, when Arab anger was rising over the war in which Israel captured large swaths of territory from Jordan, Syria and Egypt. Two years later, Gaddafi expelled the rest of Libya's Jewish community, which at its peak numbered about 37,000.
Gerbi said his fellow rebels called him the "revolutionary Jew" and that he was thrilled when he rode into the capital with fighters from the western mountains as Tripoli fell in late August.
Gerbi refused to give up, saying he would stay in Libya and press his case with the government.
"I don't want to be a hero, I don't want to play martyr, I just want to be here to support the new Libya and the democracy and to build this," he said.
I am shocked, shocked I say!
That expense of missiles to knock down their AA network sure was worth it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2011, 07:59:47 AM
That expense of missiles to knock down their AA network sure was worth it.
Keynes approved it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2011, 07:59:47 AM
That expense of missiles to knock down their AA network sure was worth it.
We did it for the Lulz? Black Hat Foreign Policy?
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 04, 2011, 09:02:18 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2011, 07:59:47 AM
That expense of missiles to knock down their AA network sure was worth it.
We did it for the Lulz? Black Hat Foreign Policy?
To make the Air Force feel relevant again. :)
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 04, 2011, 09:54:21 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 04, 2011, 09:02:18 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2011, 07:59:47 AM
That expense of missiles to knock down their AA network sure was worth it.
We did it for the Lulz? Black Hat Foreign Policy?
To make the Air Force feel relevant again. :)
The Navy shot most of the tomahawks I believe.
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2011, 08:41:38 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2011, 07:59:47 AM
That expense of missiles to knock down their AA network sure was worth it.
Keynes approved it.
I think he's going by The Minsky Moment right now.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2011, 11:59:28 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 04, 2011, 09:54:21 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 04, 2011, 09:02:18 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2011, 07:59:47 AM
That expense of missiles to knock down their AA network sure was worth it.
We did it for the Lulz? Black Hat Foreign Policy?
To make the Air Force feel relevant again. :)
The Navy shot most of the tomahawks I believe.
Didn't the USAF fly a few token missions?
QuoteSIRTE, Libya (Reuters) - Onto a battlefield littered with bizarre homemade weaponry, Libya's ruling militia fighters have rolled out their weirdest contraption yet: a concrete and steel behemoth that's a cross between a bulldozer and a battleship.
The towering monster, which appeared Wednesday in Sirte to help capture Muammar Gaddafi's home town, has a battleship's pointed prow and portholes along its sides with steel covers that can be pulled down.
Clad in concrete sandwiched between steel plates, it is painted in the colors of the new national flag -- red, green and black. Writing on the bow declares "there is no God, but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet."
Built onto a tracked bulldozer in then-rebel workshops in the city of Misrata, the new weapon is designed to smash through roadblocks and barricades.
It was meant to make its debut in the fight for Tripoli, but when the capital fell swiftly to the rebels, the souped-up bulldozer was never brought in to do battle. Until now.
"It's to clear dumped cars and shipping containers," said Gebril Ali, the burly driver from Misrata, a heavy plant operator in civilian life.
He expects to be shot at with bullets and rocket-propelled grenades, but reckons the vehicle can withstand that. Heavier weapons might be a problem though.
"Maybe I'm not coming back," Ali said, suddenly reflective. He then erupted into laughter that revealed several broken teeth. "But my mind's made up. I'm stubborn."
The vehicle is also manned by four gunners who have five heavy machine guns to fire and a tank gun mounted on top. Several AK47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers sit inside next to water bottles and bananas.
There is also a helmet full of hand grenades, just in case.
"We will be watching from the portholes and if we see them trying to flank us, we'll shoot them," said crew member Ali Abdullah, a 20-year-old student. Asked if he thought the contraption was safe, he said: "We have faith in God."
The driver's task is made all the harder by the fact that he cannot see out of the vehicle. A video camera mounted on the front was damaged by gunfire and he has to rely on two comrades peering out of slits at the front to guide him.
A commander wearing a gold-braided ship's captain's hat sat on top and shouted directions as Ali maneuvered up to the battlefront. The craft smashed into a lamp-post.
It then came to a halt next to a mosque, and all scrambled out to go pray.
Just beyond the mosque and a turn to the right is a street constantly strafed with small arms and rocket fire by Gaddafi's forces.
The men planned to drive the beast down the street and smash their way into the center of Sirte. A Reuters news team was invited to come along for the ride, but declined the offer.
Commanding a posse of pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, the man in the sea captain's hat, postman Lutfi al-Amin, plans to follow.
"When it clears the way, we will follow," Amin said. Asked about his headgear, he said: "It's my lucky hat!"
If anyone can find a picture of it, please post.
Sounds awesomely post apocalyptic! :lol:
Can't believe no Languishites has picked up on this.
He has been caught.
Quote from: Drakken on October 20, 2011, 07:05:51 AM
Can't believe no Languishites has picked up on this.
He has been caught.
Dead according to some reports.
I've decided to switch my support back to Gadhafi. :)
Quote from: citizen k on October 19, 2011, 12:50:51 PM
If anyone can find a picture of it, please post.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fstatic%2Fmanaged%2Fimg%2FScitech%2F660%2F371%2Farmored%2520bulldozer%2520libya.JPG&hash=f78b01e2794025cd563f5058164d85bbf778a084)
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/20/homemade-bulldozer-battleship-joins-libya-fight/
QuoteClad in concrete sandwiched between steel plates, it is painted in the colors of the new national flag -- red, green and black. Writing on the bow declares "there is no God, but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet."
Holy cannoli, that thing is METAL. Support switched back to rebels. :punk:
Quote from: Caliga on October 20, 2011, 06:35:57 PM
Holy cannoli, that thing is METAL. Support switched back to rebels. :punk:
I expect to see some jawas pop out of it.
This tank means the Libyian rebels are about 94 years behind the Imperial German Army.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwio.ru%2Ftank%2Fww1t%2Fa7v.jpg&hash=d834b984540a8e57c0a4258796dfc5f202af031c)
Quote from: Viking on October 20, 2011, 10:03:21 PM
This tank means the Libyian rebels are about 94 years behind the Imperial German Army.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwio.ru%2Ftank%2Fww1t%2Fa7v.jpg&hash=d834b984540a8e57c0a4258796dfc5f202af031c)
Come now. They might be a century behind in terms of technology, but intellectually and morally it's more like eight centuries.
Quote from: Viking on October 20, 2011, 10:03:21 PM
This tank means the Libyian rebels are about 94 years behind the Imperial German Army.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwio.ru%2Ftank%2Fww1t%2Fa7v.jpg&hash=d834b984540a8e57c0a4258796dfc5f202af031c)
Well I think the Libyan one contains a lot of concrete in it's make up. It has to take RPG shots. I sure as hell wouldn't want to ride in it. I would probably break down in the middle of a battle and be set on fire with gasoline bombs.
He's dead, Jim.
Quote from: Caliga on October 20, 2011, 06:35:57 PM
Holy cannoli, that thing is METAL. Support switched back to rebels. :punk:
QFT!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FEKTg7kAJuW12Z_uJxamb.Q--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMzg7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Fafp.com%2F000_Nic6076110.jpg&hash=89e9a07fc724f3d6822a44232d5d2f3f19efb7f8)
Libyan girls dressed in white as "angels", one of them armed, flash the V-sign for victory during a rally in the eastern city of Benghazi, as locals commemorated the anniversary of confronting the armed forces of late Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi. (AFP Photo/Abdullah Doma)
Quote from: citizen k on March 19, 2012, 10:07:56 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FEKTg7kAJuW12Z_uJxamb.Q--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMzg7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Fafp.com%2F000_Nic6076110.jpg&hash=89e9a07fc724f3d6822a44232d5d2f3f19efb7f8)
Libyan girls dressed in white as "angels", one of them armed, flash the V-sign for victory during a rally in the eastern city of Benghazi, as locals commemorated the anniversary of confronting the armed forces of late Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi. (AFP Photo/Abdullah Doma)
They're Polish Hussars!
An angel armed with an AK-47 :cool:
Libya 6 months on, unreported world, may require registration to view programme:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/4od (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/4od)
Mind giving us a small summary?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 02, 2012, 12:17:33 AM
Mind giving us a small summary?
Basically, different areas of Libya are run by local militias who, while claiming to be all about "defending the revolution", are probably just all about turf wars and protecting their local smuggling rackets (by shelling the neighboring town with mortars). If not that, they are demanding payouts from the fledgling government, and if not paid they start blockading roads. Includes the "militia" the runs the Tripoli airport worried that the government is trying to supplant them with some other militia.
Cue hysterical British journalist driving through areas with lots of guys in ragged clothes waving around guns and firing off shots.
Not to mention a plethora of the latest model year in "technicals". Looks like a version of a 2008+ Toyota Tundra double cab.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 02, 2012, 01:00:30 AM
Not to mention a plethora of the latest model year in "technicals". Looks like a version of a 2008+ Toyota Tundra double cab.
Sweet. A guy at work got the latest double cab model, it's like a Redneck Lincoln. Can only imagine how it rides with a recoiless rifle or a 12.7mm heavy.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 02, 2012, 01:00:30 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 02, 2012, 12:17:33 AM
Mind giving us a small summary?
Basically, different areas of Libya are run by local militias who, while claiming to be all about "defending the revolution", are probably just all about turf wars and protecting their local smuggling rackets (by shelling the neighboring town with mortars). If not that, they are demanding payouts from the fledgling government, and if not paid they start blockading roads. Includes the "militia" the runs the Tripoli airport worried that the government is trying to supplant them with some other militia.
Cue hysterical British journalist driving through areas with lots of guys in ragged clothes waving around guns and firing off shots.
Not to mention a plethora of the latest model year in "technicals". Looks like a version of a 2008+ Toyota Tundra double cab.
Stop enabling Tim's laziness.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 02, 2012, 01:00:30 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 02, 2012, 12:17:33 AM
Mind giving us a small summary?
Basically, different areas of Libya are run by local militias who, while claiming to be all about "defending the revolution", are probably just all about turf wars and protecting their local smuggling rackets (by shelling the neighboring town with mortars). If not that, they are demanding payouts from the fledgling government, and if not paid they start blockading roads. Includes the "militia" the runs the Tripoli airport worried that the government is trying to supplant them with some other militia.
Cue hysterical British journalist driving through areas with lots of guys in ragged clothes waving around guns and firing off shots.
Not to mention a plethora of the latest model year in "technicals". Looks like a version of a 2008+ Toyota Tundra double cab.
Not so sure about the guy being hysterical, he seems to be a seasoned jurno, but not a bad summary otherwise.
Though I'd add the part you missed about the hundreds of Africans detained and held without trial, was rather interesting.
Quote from: mongers on June 02, 2012, 07:21:35 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 02, 2012, 01:00:30 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 02, 2012, 12:17:33 AM
Mind giving us a small summary?
Basically, different areas of Libya are run by local militias who, while claiming to be all about "defending the revolution", are probably just all about turf wars and protecting their local smuggling rackets (by shelling the neighboring town with mortars). If not that, they are demanding payouts from the fledgling government, and if not paid they start blockading roads. Includes the "militia" the runs the Tripoli airport worried that the government is trying to supplant them with some other militia.
Cue hysterical British journalist driving through areas with lots of guys in ragged clothes waving around guns and firing off shots.
Not to mention a plethora of the latest model year in "technicals". Looks like a version of a 2008+ Toyota Tundra double cab.
Not so sure about the guy being hysterical, he seems to be a seasoned jurno, but not a bad summary otherwise.
Though I'd add the part you missed about the hundreds of Africans detained and held without trial, was rather interesting.
How many non-Africans are in Libya now?
Quote from: mongers on June 02, 2012, 07:21:35 AMNot so sure about the guy being hysterical, he seems to be a seasoned jurno, but not a bad summary otherwise.
Peter Oborne's always hysterical. He update 'Guilty Men' to be about pro-Euro politicians and journos. His Telegraph column has swung, in literally one week, from describing Cameron as potentially one of our greatest PMs to the example of the moral turpitude of our political class.
Doesn't mean he's not a good read though. Arguably that's why he's a good read.