# Libya: You say no-fly zone, France says no-tank zone



## xenopyre (Feb 19, 2011)

OP


*Spoiler*: __ 





> The number of people killed in three days of protests in Libya has risen to 84, according to the New York-based group Human Rights Watch.
> 
> The main focus of the demonstrations against Col Muammar Gaddafi's 42-year rule has been the second city Benghazi, where security forces are said to have attacked protesters again on Saturday.
> 
> ...





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa
Also from some friends living there , some governmental institutions flied the former Libyan flag .

UPDATE:  



> The UN Security Council has unanimously imposed travel bans and asset freezes on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, members of his family and inner circle.
> 
> Saturday's resolution adopted by the 15-nation council also called for the immediate referral of the deadly crackdown against anti-government demonstrators in Libya to the International Criminal Court in The Hague for investigation and possible prosecution of anyone responsible for killing civilians.
> 
> ...



Edit:  Sauf posted an excellent find from Time Magazine on Gaddafico's use of Mercenaries.  You can


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 19, 2011)

Were some reports yesterday that a few cities have actually fallen out of control of the regime. In any regard I think the man of many spellings is the worlds longest serving dictator by this point so it will be amusing seeing him go away. However I fear for the protesters a bit more then elsewhere, as the man is clearly mentally unstable.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 19, 2011)

This site is pretty good for updates.


----------



## Wolfgang Grimmer (Feb 19, 2011)

It's time to step down


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Feb 19, 2011)

take down the regime quick and fast protestors


----------



## impersonal (Feb 19, 2011)

Gaddafi would rather torture and murder every single libyan than step down. Man's a sociopath. It's not going to be easy.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 19, 2011)

He can probably hang on if he can retain control on Tripoli and the west of the country. If he does, its probably only a matter of time before he can muster a crack down on the areas largely under rebel control.

In other words, protests must spread even further geographically to really harden the screw on the regime.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 19, 2011)

The Guardian has a live update report on the Bahrain and Libyan protests.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 19, 2011)

I bet those British-trained and Belgian-armed special forces Gaddaffi has are involved in many of these oppressive actions. Be proud, Europe


----------



## makeoutparadise (Feb 19, 2011)

I think the autocratic governments in the region have gotten wise to the protesters game 
there can only be so many uprisings in the region before kinds and dictators get wise to this game


----------



## fantzipants (Feb 19, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Gaddafi would rather torture and murder every single libyan than step down. Man's a sociopath. It's not going to be easy.


"Have you seen his squad of all female bodygurads? he's like a bond villain? waits for this revilutionary fever to hi the the U.S.


----------



## Nemesis (Feb 19, 2011)

Well then we just have to send them James Bond himself.  Dalton, Connery, Moore, Lazenby and Brosman are all free at the moment we can send them all.


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 19, 2011)

Muammar is batshit etc...

The other tyrants had some kind of common sense and could see that things were getting very bad for them. And most of all, they knew they'd better cave in to international scrutiny.

Khaddafi is not the same. He's a megalomaniac, and suffers no opposition. There will be bodies on the streets...


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 19, 2011)

Since its pretty much confirmed that Ghadaffi is using foreign mercenaries to try and smash the revolt, can we interpretate this to mean that he doesnt have control over the Libyan army?


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 19, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Since its pretty much confirmed that Ghadaffi is using foreign mercenaries to try and smash the revolt, can we interpretate this to mean that he doesnt have control over the Libyan army?



I kinda want the mercs to be from Xe. So their reputation earned as Blackwater keeps haunting them, fufufu...


----------



## dummy plug (Feb 19, 2011)

he probably will take the protesters down to avoid something like Egypt


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 19, 2011)

How long has this been going on? Fucking work...I miss all the good news now.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 19, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> How long has this been going on? Fucking work...I miss all the good news now.



Started like 2-3 days ago.


From what i hear, Gaddafi's security forces and various foreign mercenaries act with such a brutality that it reminds me of the Cheka/NKVD at its bloodiest.

There's unconfirmed reports that special forces go into hospitals and deliberetely execute doctors


----------



## Mangopunch (Feb 19, 2011)

why is this news taking up air time? I want more updates on Lindsay Lohan. **


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 19, 2011)

Oh my....Poor people who died 



> why is this news taking up air time? I want more updates on Lindsay Lohan.


'Cause Lohan gets boring lol


----------



## Darklyre (Feb 20, 2011)

T4R0K said:


> I kinda want the mercs to be from Xe. So their reputation earned as Blackwater keeps haunting them, fufufu...



No modern PMC is going to work for some tin-pot dictator. There's no guarantee that they'd actually get paid afterwards.


----------



## urca (Feb 20, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Started like 2-3 days ago.
> 
> 
> From what i hear, Gaddafi's security forces and various foreign mercenaries act with such a brutality that it reminds me of the Cheka/NKVD at its bloodiest.
> ...


 
lemme add some stuff to your news list :3
mo'ammar qaddafi has executed many of his army officers today,and he also set all of the prisoners free so they can fuck up the situation in libya.
and he was tryin to make a speech today but the protest is preventing him from doin so...
may god be with all of the libyan brothers and sisters,the damn tyrant killed a lot of them through this protest


----------



## impersonal (Feb 20, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> I bet those British-trained and Belgian-armed special forces Gaddaffi has are involved in many of these oppressive actions. Be proud, Europe



Europe is keeping silent about it... But so are the US (don't know about Israel, but I suspect you guys don't really mind him that much either; he has a terrible record but lately has known to become more practical to everyone). All of the "free world" bent over for Gaddaffi when he offered a little oil. And now he's going to sadistically murder any one who opposes him, with our money (including a few of my tax euros, thanks Sarkozy)...and the silent approbation of our "leaders".


----------



## Overwatch (Feb 20, 2011)

The death tow in Benghazi has reached 200+, 900 more are injured:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12517327


----------



## stream (Feb 20, 2011)

It is so good that these countries finally revolt against their dictators... Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Iraq... Wait, what?


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 20, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Europe is keeping silent about it... But so are the US (don't know about Israel, but I suspect you guys don't really mind him that much either; he has a terrible record but lately has known to become more practical to everyone). All of the "free world" bent over for Gaddaffi when he offered a little oil. And now he's going to sadistically murder any one who opposes him, with our money (including a few of my tax euros, thanks Sarkozy)...and the silent approbation of our "leaders".



Eh, we're quite hostile to Gaddaffi. He's an ally to the Syrians, constantly calls for the Palestinians to do outrageous things, and so on. I would place Libya as our worst enemy after the Iran/Syria/Lebanon trio and Sudan.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 20, 2011)

Overwatch said:


> The death tow in Benghazi has reached 200+, 900 more are injured:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12517327



Damn. I hope this all ends soon to lessen the death and injured people.


----------



## Deeeeevil (Feb 20, 2011)

All the rage in the middel east has been planned already. soon war is going to come check this video everything was  predicted back in 2003 by this man


----------



## T.D.A (Feb 20, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]fwnUQcKXmMM[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## impersonal (Feb 20, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Eh, we're quite hostile to Gaddaffi. He's an ally to the Syrians, constantly calls for the Palestinians to do outrageous things, and so on. I would place Libya as our worst enemy after the Iran/Syria/Lebanon trio and Sudan.



Alright, will take your word for it. I'm no specialist


----------



## Deeeeevil (Feb 20, 2011)

those are shia muslims when they was attacking and some died. they where crying  oh hussein oh hussein ( hussein is the  prophet muhammed  grandson whom where betrayed and killed by them),,,


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Feb 20, 2011)

on to the next one...


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 20, 2011)

T.D.A said:


> [YOUTUBE]fwnUQcKXmMM[/YOUTUBE]



I can't believe that video is allowed up on Youtube.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 20, 2011)

Puzzling how all the 3 revolutions(No, Libya isnt a done deal yet, but lets face it, it seems very unlikely now that Gadaffi can survive in power) so far has happened in North-Africa. I guess you could blame it on the Gulf Kingdoms buying some time and patience with their Oil wealth, but Libya did have oil reserves as well.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that most of the Arab Gulf countries have royal dynasties that have lasted centuries and thus have more legetimacy compared to decades long old presidents who dont have the "aura" of royal blood in them.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 20, 2011)

Apparently Al Jazeera is saying there are reports that Gaddaffi is considering fleeing to Venezuela.


----------



## Sky is Over (Feb 21, 2011)

T.D.A said:


> [YOUTUBE]fwnUQcKXmMM[/YOUTUBE]



Wow, you think the fuckers would have the decency to at least drag them out of the line of fire than rather run around the bodies and take pictures.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 21, 2011)

Sky is Over said:


> Wow, you think the fuckers would have the decency to at least drag them out of the line of fire than rather run around the bodies and take pictures.



Welcome to Arab politics. Run around in circles and yell rather then actually help the wounded.


----------



## xenopyre (Feb 21, 2011)

From Gadhafi's son speech "We will keep fighting until the last man standing, even to the last woman standing ... *We will not leave Libya to the Italians or the Turks.*" 
Also I think that Gadhafi will soon be gone , since the two largest tribes and many military legions (with a populations of more than 2 millions) in Libya have joined the protesters  and have threatned that they will cut the oil supply if the masssacres continues .


----------



## T.D.A (Feb 21, 2011)

Sky is Over said:


> Wow, you think the fuckers would have the decency to at least drag them out of the line of fire than rather run around the bodies and take pictures.





Megaharrison said:


> Welcome to Arab politics. Run around in circles and yell rather then actually help the wounded.



Probably scared of getting shot themselves.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Feb 21, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Welcome to Arab politics. Run around in circles and yell rather then actually help the wounded.



what does arab politics has to do with that? they were shooting at those people half a second before ...your antisemitism is gross. i hope u never will make it into politics and rather stay a pawn of the IDF.


----------



## kayanathera (Feb 21, 2011)

T.D.A said:


> Probably scared of getting shot themselves.



welcome to israeli politics


----------



## Nemesis (Feb 21, 2011)

xenopyre said:


> From Gadhafi's son speech "We will keep fighting until the last man standing, even to the last woman standing ... *We will not leave Libya to the Italians or the Turks.*"



What the.  Is it 1912 again?


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 21, 2011)

T.D.A said:
			
		

> Probably scared of getting shot themselves.



If that were the case I imagine they would take cover or get down on the ground rather then running around waving their arms/flags.



Kimimarox said:


> what does arab politics has to do with that? they were shooting at those people half a second before ...your antisemitism is gross. i hope u never will make it into politics and rather stay a pawn of the IDF.



Notice I said Arab politics rather then Arabs themselves. You do see in the region them constantly throwing their dead around in these frenzied "funerals" to be exploited by the media. There's a lack of respect for the dead and wounded by political activists and the media.



			
				Nemesis said:
			
		

> What the. Is it 1912 again?



Equally strange if you consider how friendly the Erdogan government is to Gaddaffi or how much money Italy is throwing their way.

Anyway, there are reports now that the Libyan air force has attacked protesters. An escalation Mubarak was unable to do.


----------



## Adagio (Feb 21, 2011)

Berlusconi and Geddafi had an agreement a few years ago where the Italian government pledged to offer economic aid or something like that in exchange for an increased effort in stopping illegal immigration from Lybia to Italy, as well as a cheaper oil deal. Though I'm not exactly sure about that.. so it could explain why they're wary about Italy in the first place.

Edit:

Okay so apparently its pretty much what I said but veiled with the intention of "repaying Lybia" for the crimes committed when Italy occupied Lybia during WWII.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 21, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Anyway, there are reports now that the Libyan air force has attacked protesters. An escalation Mubarak was unable to do.



Gaddafi makes Ben Ali and Mubarak look like fluffy bleeding heart kittens



Also, useless UN is useless as usual. I mean seriously, they have had zero influence in these events


----------



## Adagio (Feb 21, 2011)

Apprehension amongst the EU is increasing. They're worried for increasing illegal immigrants and the Italian Foreign Minister is already shouting about the danger of a potential new Islamic Emirate so close to our borders if Geddafi's rule collapses.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 21, 2011)

Reports now that 2 Libyan Mirage F1 Fighter Jets plus some helicopters have defected to Malta rather then continuing shooting protesters. They're also reporting that Libyan airbases have been looted and destroyed by protesters.



			
				Adagio said:
			
		

> Apprehension amongst the EU is increasing. They're worried for increasing illegal immigrants and the Italian Foreign Minister is already shouting about the danger of a potential new Islamic Emirate so close to our borders if Geddafi's rule collapses.



I like how we were decried by Europe for saying the same thing with Egypt, but now it ain't so much fun anymore.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 21, 2011)

Seems like there's a huge wave of desertion among Libyan diplomats as well. The ambassadors to the UN, Britain, China and the Arab League and probably more to come have all condemned Gaddafi or officially joined the rebellion.

EDIT: Seems like the ambassadors to Poland, Indonesia and India have followed suit.


----------



## Adagio (Feb 21, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> I like how we were decried by Europe for saying the same thing with Egypt, but now it ain't so much fun anymore.






Phoebus said:


> Caf? Convo Thread #52: Where everything is entertainment as long as it is happening to somebody else.


This person has it spot on


----------



## stream (Feb 21, 2011)

Switzerland will be happy to see the end of the holy war with Libya


----------



## Altron (Feb 21, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> *Reports now that 2 Libyan Mirage F1 Fighter Jets plus some helicopters have defected to Malta rather then continuing shooting protesters.* They're also reporting that Libyan airbases have been looted and destroyed by protesters.


do you have a source for this since I am surprised Libyan Fighters would defect.


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 21, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> I can't believe that video is allowed up on Youtube.



In all fairness you don't see the people being shot.


----------



## Saf (Feb 21, 2011)

Quick reminder:





Megaharrison said:


> West doesn't really seem to understand the kind of powderkeg that's going to be unleashed if Mubarak falls, a democratic Egypt would be a disaster for everyone in the region and for the Egyptians themselves as sad as that is to say. While obviously everybody would prefer that everybody lives in democracy, the Lebanon, Iraq, or Gaza examples demonstrate what kind of instability can result from an Arab democracy. Both to itself and to everybody that has to be around it.
> 
> If Mubarak falls it's going to lead to the biggest catastrophe in the Middle East in recent memory, I just hope all these people preaching about FREEDOM realize that.


----------



## iander (Feb 21, 2011)

Geddafi's regime is done for.  Its sad that so many protesters are being killed though.  I wish them much luck.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 21, 2011)

Saf said:


> Quick reminder:



What's your point ? None of the countries that had revolutions have democracies yet.


----------



## Nemesis (Feb 21, 2011)

Altron said:


> do you have a source for this since I am surprised Libyan Fighters would defect.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12523669

Both are colonels which is pretty high up.

It was also on ITV news just now as well in the UK


----------



## Altron (Feb 21, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12523669
> 
> Both are colonels which is pretty high up.
> 
> It was also on ITV news just now as well in the UK


Thanks, I also think that probably like the Egyptian Army that sided with the protesters we might see even more military defections by the Libyan Military who don't want to go down with Gaddafi's regime.


----------



## Feminist (Feb 21, 2011)

Altron said:


> Thanks, I also think that probably like the Egyptian Army that sided with the protesters we might see even more military defections by the Libyan Military who don't want to go down with Gaddafi's regime.



Right now, it's extremely dangerous for any of the soldiers to defect. Stating the obvious tbh. 

Apparently, some *soldiers who have refused to shoot the protesters, have been burned to death in their barracks by Gaddafi.*

I can't post the video on here, it's too graphic and horrendous. But message me for the link if you wish to see it.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 21, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Gaddafi makes Ben Ali and Mubarak look like fluffy bleeding heart kittens
> 
> 
> 
> Also, useless UN is useless as usual. I mean seriously, they have had zero influence in these events



Just like the USA and Europe! Well, to be honest, they both pretty much sponsored the (various) dictators against their people. Unlike the UN.


----------



## Feminist (Feb 21, 2011)

Has the UN even released a statement? The UN should step in when these kind of human right violations occur. Right now I know that some Human Rights Watch reporters are down there right now, but I'm not sure about Amnesty International.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 21, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> I like how we were decried by Europe for saying the same thing with Egypt, but now it ain't so much fun anymore.


It's different. Italy (and others) just wants to buy cheap oil, and sell expensive weaponry.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Feb 21, 2011)

Welp, looks like Malta just acquired their first fighter jets.

But holy shit, bombing your own fucking people with planes. That just takes insanity to a whole new level.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 21, 2011)

Feminist said:


> Has the UN even released a statement? The UN should step in when these kind of human right violations occur. Right now I know that some Human Rights Watch reporters are down there right now, but I'm not sure about Amnesty International.



Ban ki-Moon supposedly called Gaddafi and told him to stop the violence immediatedly. Though, not surprisingly, the UN Human Rights Council has done absolutely nothing.

And yes, i've already seen that vid of the burned corpses....and even more gruesome photage, including of corpses that have been torn into pieces. That fucker better face the ICJ, but as with Bashir in Sudan, i fully expect he'll escape justice




> Just like the USA and Europe! Well, to be honest, they both pretty much sponsored the (various) dictators against their people. Unlike the UN.



Pretty outrageous that they are still doing their toothless "We strongly condemn" and are "Deeply concerned" routine. That will surely deter the regime! "roll eyes"


----------



## Coteaz (Feb 21, 2011)

The UN Human Rights Council only cares if it involves inhumane Israeli oppression of innocent, peace-loving Arabs.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Feb 21, 2011)

The best thing for <generic non-Libyan country> to do is wait and see.  If you step in and do something, if you're the UN, the US, or anyone else--then you become a possible external enemy and a target for the regime to shift the focus too.  Nothing unites a divided people like an outside enemy.

This is a fight for the people of Libya to win or lose.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Feb 21, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Eh, we're quite hostile to Gaddaffi. He's an ally to the Syrians, constantly calls for the Palestinians to do outrageous things, and so on. I would place Libya as our worst enemy after the Iran/Syria/Lebanon trio and Sudan.



Do you mean in the region?

I think that North Korea is a much bigger PITA and maybe Venezuela and Cuba as well. However, I'd rate him as being a bigger enemy of ours than Lebanon. I don't even know why they made it on the list. Hezbollah has all of 10% of the seats in their parliament and doesn't have any cabinet positions as of yet. The current president is a Christian and he was in command of the government forces fighting Hezbollah in 2008 and the terrorist group Fatah-I-Islam in 2005. Lebanon still isn't organized that well, but the bulk of those that are in charge aren't our enemies.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 21, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> The best thing for <generic non-Libyan country> to do is wait and see.  If you step in and do something, if you're the UN, the US, or anyone else--then you become a possible external enemy and a target for the regime to shift the focus too.  Nothing unites a divided people like an outside enemy.
> 
> This is a fight for the people of Libya to win or lose.



While i generally would agree with this assesment in other cases i really doubt this would apply in this instance. I see this as similar to Khmer Rouge's toppling by the Vietnamese in 1979 or the Taliban overthrow in 2001, all which were welcomed by the large majority of the native population.

And the UN World Summit Document in 2005 certainly gives other states a moral imperative to act against state sponsored human rights violations.


----------



## kayanathera (Feb 21, 2011)

> LIBYA, 2:15 p.m. ET: Two Libyan Air Force pilots defected to Malta on Monday after being asked to bomb Libyan citizens, a Maltese government source said. The pilots' fighter jets were armed with rockets and loaded machine guns, the source said. Malta is a short flight from Libya.
> 
> LIBYA, 1:19 p.m. ET: Libyan helicopter gunships are firing into crowds of protesters, according to the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an opposition group. CNN was unable to confirm the report independently.
> 
> LIBYA, 12:26 p.m. ET: Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, told reporters that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has declared war on the Libyan people and is committing genocide.


gaddhafi is a dead man


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 21, 2011)

No one seems to have noticed that the Minister of Justice of Libya gave his resignation today in protest against the Colonel.

Also, there are rumors like Muammar is on his way to hide at Hugo C's place (and it's certainly fake)

But, man, he makes it pretty hard, even by dictatorial standards ! Jet bombing his population ? Setting people on fire ? Leveling places ? Shit, man, that's Nero level insanity !


----------



## Punpun (Feb 21, 2011)

But the UN can't intervenes either because the dozens of authoritarian country in it would never be in favor in such movements..

Just look at Africa and Western Asia...


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 21, 2011)

Saf said:


> Quick reminder:



Lol this is so cute. What are you trying to "expose"? Do you even know how to use this statement to find a contradiction from me in this thread? Where is my apparent contradiction in this thread? Have fun with that. If you're going to try and dig up dirt on me at least know how to use it.

A "quick reminder" is that Europe is saying exactly what I did with Egypt regarding a worse regime for reasons not even as noble as security in stability, but rather cheap oil. I am moral compared to these people.



			
				Nick Soapdish said:
			
		

> Do you mean in the region?
> 
> I think that North Korea is a much bigger PITA and maybe Venezuela and Cuba as well. However, I'd rate him as being a bigger enemy of ours than Lebanon. I don't even know why they made it on the list. Hezbollah has all of 10% of the seats in their parliament and doesn't have any cabinet positions as of yet. The current president is a Christian and he was in command of the government forces fighting Hezbollah in 2008 and the terrorist group Fatah-I-Islam in 2005. Lebanon still isn't organized that well, but the bulk of those that are in charge aren't our enemies.



I meant the world, but I concede that North Korea is indeed a worse enemy and I had forgotten about them.

The Lebanese state is an enemy however. They cooperate fully with Hezbollah and consider them a legitimate resistance group despite it violating International Law, now have a Hezbollah PM, Hariri has been cosying up to the Syrians against Israel (despite them having killed his father), they've committed acts of pure aggression against us (see the border attack over the summer), not to mention how they treated Samir Kuntar. Fighting Fatah-I-Islam was just another way for them to keep the Palestinians down and was an act of self-preservation, there was nothing admirable about it.

Anyway, the Gypo Army is saying that the Libyan Military is no longer in control of its Border with Egypt. Rather they're encountering armed tribal militias calling themselves "People's Committees". The death toll is at least at 600 now. This is quite a bloody revolution.


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 21, 2011)

French news channel just said that Mumu could be talking in a few. 

Waiting mode.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 21, 2011)

Vid of protesters with a captured Belgian grenade launcher.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 21, 2011)

Feminist said:


> Has the UN even released a statement? The UN should step in when these kind of human right violations occur. Right now I know that some Human Rights Watch reporters are down there right now, but I'm not sure about Amnesty International.


Why should the UN step in, this doesn't involve any wrongdoing by Israeli or anything...


----------



## Alien (Feb 21, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> And yes, i've already seen that vid of the burned corpses....and even more gruesome photage, including of corpses that have been torn into pieces. That fucker better face the ICJ, but as with Bashir in Sudan, i fully expect he'll escape justice



Just saw the second vid


----------



## Altron (Feb 21, 2011)

Gaddafi made a big mistake using foreign mercenaries seeing as how now protesters with the help of even police and soldiers are hunting the mercenaries down and lynching them if they aren't already dead.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 21, 2011)

With some luck, this will end quickly and all this death will be over.


----------



## kayanathera (Feb 21, 2011)

Attention very graphic video bellow,if you dont have over 18 years  or a very strong stomach dont open the spoilers
this is quite a copycat of our 89 romanian revolution, hopefully the libyans wont repeat the same mistakes like not punishing those reponsible


----------



## Altron (Feb 21, 2011)

So apparently even a Sunni Muslim imam/cleric from the Muslim Brotherhood declared a Fatwa on Gaddafi saying "Anyone in the Libyan Army able to shoot Gaddafi should do so".



Also saw some gruesome pictures of the casualties


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 21, 2011)

Pic just in of the Libyan equivalent of parliament in Tripoli:



Not looking good for the man of many spellings to say the least.


----------



## Altron (Feb 21, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Pic just in of the Libyan equivalent of parliament in Tripoli:
> 
> 
> 
> Not looking good for the man of many spellings to say the least.


If anything Gaddafi and his sons will be lynched without mercy if they fall into the hands of the protesters.


----------



## Feminist (Feb 21, 2011)

. Video of the burning of the building is in the link. A government sanctioned massacre...I need to study international law.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 21, 2011)

Now the protesters, if Gaddafi has already fled, might just show real commitment to their protest and follow him to Venezuela >.>

I wonder what Gaddafi's reaction would be if that happened.


----------



## iander (Feb 22, 2011)

This thread has been thoroughly derailed.  Try to stick to talking about Libya rather than Israel for the millionth thread.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't lead to a prolonged civil war.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Feb 22, 2011)

This isn't about Israel or whatever.  This thread is about the unrest in Libya.

Stay on topic or your posts you've expended so much energy into will be deleted


----------



## xenopyre (Feb 22, 2011)

Also many islamic clerics including AL Qaradhawi have issued a Fatwas for killing Kadhafi .


----------



## Patchouli (Feb 22, 2011)

> Press Statement
> Hillary Rodham Clinton
> Secretary of State
> Washington, DC
> ...


----------



## Xion (Feb 22, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Vid of protesters with a captured Belgian grenade launcher.


----------



## pikachuwei (Feb 22, 2011)

according to al jazeera around 300+ have been killed now as fresh reports of warplanes bombing civilians and more mercenaries flow in =/


----------



## impersonal (Feb 22, 2011)

What's you guys' take on Gaddafi's vid? It seems to me that there is nothing that shows he is in Tripoli... or even when the video was taken. So I'm taking it as evidence that he is in Venezuela.


----------



## pikachuwei (Feb 22, 2011)

interesting stuff from TIME



> There's been virtually no reliable information coming out of Tripoli, but a source close to the Gaddafi regime I did manage to get hold of told me the already terrible situation in Libya will get much worse. Among other things, Gaddafi has ordered security services to start sabotaging oil facilities. They will start by blowing up several oil pipelines, cutting off flow to Mediterranean ports. The sabotage, according to the insider, is meant to serve as a message to Libya's rebellious tribes: It's either me or chaos.
> Two weeks ago this same man had told me the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt would never touch Libya. Gaddafi, he said, had a tight lock on all of the major tribes, the same ones that have kept him in power for the past 41 years. The man of course turned out to be wrong, and everything he now has to say about Gaddafi's intentions needs to be taken in that context.
> (See TIME's exclusive interview with Gaddafi.)
> The source went on and told me that Gaddafi's desperation has a lot to with the fact that he now can only count on the loyalty of his tribe, the Qadhadhfa. And as for the army, as of Monday he only has the loyalty of approximately 5,000 troops. They are his elite forces, the officers all handpicked. Among them is the unit commanded by his second youngest son Khamis, the 32nd Brigade. (The total strength of the regular Libyan army is 45,000.)
> ...



if this is true gadafi truly is on the brink.


----------



## Adagio (Feb 22, 2011)

Assassinate the dumbass now. Even if he is bluffing he has the means to cause a lot of havoc for many people.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 22, 2011)

China says "kill people if you want, but give us more oil. PS: do not kill the Chinese people there, though". The Chinese are such bitches... Their rise to power is going to be disastrous.


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 22, 2011)

impersonal said:


> China says "kill people if you want, but give us more oil. PS: do not kill the Chinese people there, though". The Chinese are such bitches... Their rise to power is going to be disastrous.



The spice must flow.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 22, 2011)

I predict Gandafi either will die by the brotherly love of the people or find refuge in a country ruled by other megalomaniac scum.


----------



## KuzuRyuSen (Feb 22, 2011)

I've read an article where two Libyan Airforce Colonels defected to Italy (Malta) because of an order to them to bomb civilian protesters.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 22, 2011)

Reports now are saying that Gaddaffi and his followers are hold up in 2 barracks in Tripoli.

Also:



All beware African Hitler Jew


----------



## Adagio (Feb 22, 2011)

Btw, Malta is not part of Italy. 

Army officers have started defecting in multiple instances, but the reports of other "traitors" being murdered/burned/mutilated are increasing as well. Can't believe Geddafi still has people loyal to him. 
If he truly is in Venezuela now, I wonder what will happen next. Will international pressure be enough to force Chavez to cave in?


Edit - Oh. It seems like no one is pretty sure where he was. At first reports said that he might have run to Venezuela, then others said that he ran to a military base in some town out of Tripoli and now according to MH he's still there. I guess everything is pretty chaotic there anyways.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 22, 2011)

There's supposed to be a Arab League meeting and a UN SC meeting about Libya today.

Rofl above post. He's probably the last person you can accuse of being a Zionist, Iranian regime atleast got Israeli weapons in the 80's


----------



## Adagio (Feb 22, 2011)

I'm confused with the star of david being scribbled on him. I thought he was (strongly) anti-Israel.


----------



## kayanathera (Feb 22, 2011)

impersonal said:


> China says "kill people if you want, but give us more oil. PS: do not kill the Chinese people there, though". The Chinese are such bitches... Their rise to power is going to be disastrous.



coming from a french thats hillarious


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 22, 2011)

Adagio said:


> I'm confused with the star of david being scribbled on him. I thought he was (strongly) anti-Israel.



Probably for the ones who did it Jew is synonymous with evil and they used it to describe him whether its true or not. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway from what I am reading it seems that Gandafi will meet his end in Tripoli. Which is good.


----------



## Luxiano (Feb 22, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Rofl above post. He's probably the last person you can accuse of being a Zionist.



Totaly




> Also many islamic clerics including AL Qaradhawi have issued a Fatwas for killing Kadhafi



He won't be missed 

Mu' is "near death" it seems and Ben Ali in coma.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 22, 2011)

kayanathera said:


> coming from a french thats hillarious


I don't know or care about where you're from. But Obama hasn't done much better. And neither have the UK. Not to mention Italy. I have addressed that in other posts, during the recent events but also during Gaddafi's visit to France 3 years ago.

That doesn't change a thing about China being even worse.

So if possible, I'd rather you keep your primary nationalism/xenophobia for the local bar instead of polluting the threads of this forum.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 22, 2011)

impersonal said:


> I don't know or care about where you're from. But Obama hasn't done much better. And neither have the UK. Not to mention Italy. I have addressed that in other posts, during the recent events but also during Gaddafi's visit to France 3 years ago.
> 
> That doesn't change a thing about China being even worse.
> 
> So if possible, I'd rather you keep your primary nationalism/xenophobia for the local bar instead of polluting the threads of this forum.



For us mere mortals who can't speak french, what does that article say ?


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 22, 2011)

Gadaffi speaking


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 22, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12544624



> Defiant Gaddafi refuses to quit amid Libya protests
> 
> Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi has refused to stand down amid widespread anti-government protests which he said had tarnished the image of the country.
> 
> ...



His insanity would be funny if it wasn't having such tragic consequences.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 22, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> For us mere mortals who can't speak french, what does that article say ?



Sarkozy received Gaddafi in 2007.


In other news, Gaddafi is currently addressing the nation in a speech. It is apparent that the man is crazy.


----------



## xenopyre (Feb 22, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Rofl above post. He's probably the last person you can accuse of being a Zionist, Iranian regime atleast got Israeli weapons in the 80's


It is probably becouse of   
those videos have been circulating on Facebook for like a year now .


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 22, 2011)

Gaddaffi has said he will fight to the death against his own people basically. The King of Kings of Africa indeed.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 22, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Sarkozy received Gaddafi in 2007.
> 
> 
> In other news, Gaddafi is currently addressing the nation in a speech. It is apparent that the man is *still *crazy.



fixed. I mean we always knew that he was crazy.


----------



## xenopyre (Feb 22, 2011)

He gave his speech in a public square , does he want us to believe that there were actually people listening to him ?


----------



## Darklyre (Feb 22, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Rofl above post. He's probably the last person you can accuse of being a Zionist, Iranian regime atleast got Israeli weapons in the 80's



Are you suuuuuuure?!



> In a bizarre and unexpected development, an Israeli magazine reported today that Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi may actually seek refuge in Israel.
> 
> A story in_ Israel Today Magazine_ stated that last year an Israel television news program interviewed two Israeli women of Libyan origin who claimed they were distantly related to Gaddafi.
> 
> ...


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 22, 2011)

kayanathera said:


> coming from a french thats hillarious


----------



## stream (Feb 22, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Gaddafi has said he will fight to the death against his own people basically. The King of Kings of Africa indeed.



Yep. And considering that he has the money to pay for mercenaries who don't give a shit (smart move of him not relying only on his army), this could actually go on for a while. Then the UN will eventually have to intervene.

The diplomatic ballet is going to be something to behold: "we are not deposing Gaddafi, not invading the country, we are just protecting the Libyans who are having a revolution against him. We are the good guys!" To defend from the inevitable accusations of imperialism.


----------



## kayanathera (Feb 22, 2011)

Le Mâle Dominant said:


>



Correct but I posted that link to demonstrate a point to impersonal who was blabling about some chinese and stuff.I think you should play the moral high ground card when you actually are in such a position.judge for yourself





> Originally Posted by impersonal
> China says "kill people if you want, but give us more oil. PS: do not kill the Chinese people there, though". The Chinese are such bitches... Their rise to power is going to be disastrous.


----------



## Darklyre (Feb 22, 2011)

kayanathera said:


> Correct but I posted that link to demonstrate a point to impersonal who was blabling about some chinese and stuff.I think you should play the moral high ground cart when you actually are in such a position



Just because someone's a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong.


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 22, 2011)

New sitcom : "Everybody loves Muammar !" or "How I met Muammar"


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 22, 2011)

xenopyre said:


> It is probably becouse of
> those videos have been circulating on Facebook for like a year now .





Darklyre said:


> Are you suuuuuuure?!



Sneaky Zionist

Guess he is the same breed as gay conservative Republicans. Ranting against and hating the very thing he is


----------



## impersonal (Feb 22, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> Just because someone's a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong.



Not to mention that, as explained earlier, I would only be a hypocrite if I hadn't already condemned France's actions with Gaddafi numerous times before. edit: including in the first page of this thread.

Having a relatively simplistic mode of thought, kayanatera identified me with my national origin instead of making the effort of judging my character.

You're doing the same thing by the way, suggesting that, indeed, I am a hypocrite. Thanks for the support though.

This whole thing is annoying. Will I have to apologize for being white next time I condemn some country's support of slavery, or for being a man next time I argue against some misogynist?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 22, 2011)

With this arab revolution in the Northern Africa, i wonder how the Mediterranean will evolve. If these countries become peaceful democracies, maybe it could be interesting.

impersonal, excuse toi d'être français. Les français n'ont pas le droit de critiquer la politique des autres pays. Seul les anglo saxons ont ce droit.


----------



## Feminist (Feb 22, 2011)

The White House Comment Line: 1-202-456-1111.
The  Libyan Embassy ? Washington D.C.: 1-202-944-9601.

Call these lines to learn how to support the Libyan revolution and what you can do to help.Posting from school, so I haven't called in yet.


----------



## Feminist (Feb 22, 2011)

The Guardian released this, concerning his recent address. 


> _Muammar Gaddafi makes defiant television address, attacking ?US  tyranny? and ?sick people? within Libya_
> 
> Muammar Gaddafi  refused to step down as Libya?s leader in a televised address on Tuesday  afternoon saying *?I am going to die here as a martyr?*  and accusing ?forces affiliated to foreign forces? of seeking to  ?disfigure, undermine and tarnish the reputation of the country?.
> 
> ...


----------



## kayanathera (Feb 22, 2011)

what is the most embarassing is UE complete lack of reaction not only to the libyan situation but also to the tunisian one.the italians are screaming about waves of immigrants,some idiot is droping bombs on its own people,all in the UE backyard and reaction is zero


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 22, 2011)

kayanathera said:


> what is the most embarassing is UE complete lack of reaction not only to the libyan situation but also to the tunisian one.the italians are screaming about waves of immigrants,some idiot is droping bombs on its own people,all in the UE backyard and reaction is zero



UE? You mean EU? Unless you are talking about United Emirates.  Well, I am not sure if it is sufficient reaction,  but there is this:


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 22, 2011)

The EU is referred to as the UE in several languages, relax.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 22, 2011)

Rob said:


> The EU is referred to as the UE in several languages, relax.



Oh ok.

.........................

Here are more reactions from the European council.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Feb 22, 2011)

Feminist said:


> The Guardian released this, concerning his recent address.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 22, 2011)

EU or UE for "Union Européenne" in french and similar order for latin languages.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 22, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> EU or UE for "Union Europ?enne" in french and similar order for latin languages.



Yeah, I didn't know that. Does Union Europ?enne mean Union of the Europeans or does it directly translate to European Union?


----------



## Punpun (Feb 22, 2011)

DIrectly translate. Union Européenne by example.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 22, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> Yeah, I didn't know that. Does Union Europ?enne mean Union of the Europeans or does it directly translate to European Union?



No, like Mandom said, it's the direct translation of European Union. If i translate "Union of the European" in french, it's "Union des Europ?ens"

It's like United State that become in french "Etats Unis" or Estados Unidos in spanish.

"Etats" or "Estados" mean "State"


----------



## Punpun (Feb 22, 2011)

In the same time, What can UE do ? They have no power per se. (no military force)

If America or another country directly intervene it will be seen as a direct agression. They need a mandat by a supranational organisation (ONU) for it to works legally and correctly. 

Authorisation that will be given way too late...


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 22, 2011)

In terms of actions I am not sure if it is adequate or if they can do more and how. In terms of words the message they sent seems pretty correct. They are not ignoring the situation completely.


----------



## Penance (Feb 22, 2011)

Mangopunch said:


> why is this news taking up air time? I want more updates on Lindsay Lohan. **



The more of her, the less I see.  I am not amused...


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 22, 2011)

First we must evacuate our citizens from this country for not be used by Ghaddaffi as hostages. Without our citizens there, we can strike their air force bases.


----------



## Feminist (Feb 22, 2011)

Mandom said:


> In the same time, What can UE do ? They have no power per se. (no military force)
> 
> If America or another country directly intervene it will be seen as a direct aggression. They need a mandate by a supranational organization (ONU) for it to works legally and correctly.
> 
> Authorization that will be given way too late...



Countries can release statements in favor of the Libyan revolutionaries and condemn Gaddafi for his actions. This will put political pressure on Gaddafi, to end his violence.

But I don't think this would work in the Libyan situation due too Gaddafi's twisted stubbornness. Still, the countries should show their support, and many have.

And I can't think of a country that would willingly spend money to ship off soldiers to Libya, unless the people of that country are in absolute favor of doing so.

Definitely not America.


----------



## xxSasorixx (Feb 22, 2011)

kayanathera said:


> what is the most embarassing is UE complete lack of reaction not only to the libyan situation but also to the tunisian one.the italians are screaming about waves of immigrants,*some idiot is droping bombs on its own people*,all in the UE backyard and reaction is zero



Well, Gadaffi saw what happens if you try to just 'ride it out' in Tunisia and Egypt.

He doesn't have a whole lot of options if he wants to stay in power.


----------



## Altron (Feb 22, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12544624

Be careful what you wish for Gaddafi. I am sure you won't be disappointed


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 22, 2011)

Libya has just been suspended from the Arab League. 4th entity to have done so I believe. Egypt for making peace with Israel, Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait, and perhaps the PLO for siding with Saddam during said invasion (not sure about that one though).


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 22, 2011)

They's making the gas go up!


----------



## Punpun (Feb 22, 2011)

The security council may soon have a meeting. (sorry no better way to phrase it..)

Hilary Clinton (thus America) strongly  condemned what's happening..


----------



## stream (Feb 22, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They's making the gas go up!



And the stock market is heading lower! Truly, Gaddafi is _evil_.

Hang in there, Libyans... Help is coming, Real Soon Now (tm). Unfortunately, your direct neighbors are busy, and the Europe is still getting its act together.

I'm afraid people like Berlusconi are actually waiting to be sure that Gaddafi is really on his way out before condemning him. I mean, what if the protests die down in a few days, and he takes control of the country again; it would look pretty stupid to have blamed him today only to try to schmooze up to him next week. 

He has a very long memory for people and countries who crossed him.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 22, 2011)

stream said:


> And the stock market is heading lower! Truly, Gaddafi is _evil_.
> 
> Hang in there, Libyans... Help is coming, Real Soon Now (tm). Unfortunately, your direct neighbors are busy, and the Europe is still getting its act together.
> 
> ...



No, it's too late for him. After his speech and what he did with the mercenaries. He can't be accepted by the international community anymore.


----------



## kayanathera (Feb 22, 2011)

> There's been virtually no reliable information coming out of Tripoli, but a source close to the Gaddafi regime I did manage to get hold of told me the already terrible situation in Libya will get much worse. Among other things, Gaddafi has ordered security services to start sabotaging oil facilities. They will start by blowing up several oil pipelines, cutting off flow to Mediterranean ports. The sabotage, according to the insider, is meant to serve as a message to Libya's rebellious tribes: It's either me or chaos.


If this is true then he should prepare for foreign invasion


----------



## ximkoyra (Feb 23, 2011)

Le Mâle Dominant said:


> No, it's too late for him. After his speech and what he did with the mercenaries. He can't be accepted by the international community anymore.



This is the same guy who said that Muslims in Switzerland should engage in jihad or something and make the Swiss pay for the minaret thing.  He can do and say anything he wants to, except have a nuclear program since that would challenge Israel's hegemony of the region, and he will be accepted.  If Ahmedinejad were to scrap Iran's nuclear program today, you would probably see Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, and all these other idiots schmoozing it up with him in a matter of weeks.

Human rights is an issue that's only brought up when people are trying to push their agenda.  Nobody actually cares


----------



## stream (Feb 23, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> No, it's too late for him. After his speech and what he did with the mercenaries. He can't be accepted by the international community anymore.



Perhaps I am cynical. But after all, only twenty years ago, he was one of the top bad guys in the world, the equivalent of Bin Laden at the time. It is only recently that he has become respectable.

And anyway, who is going to kick him out if he crushes the protests? Europe, the US? I remember distinctly they have other problems right now, and the last bit of country-liberating has been... controversial. I don't see Obama calling for an Operation Freedom on Libya. After Bush and Iraq, it is just not possible, especially with the current economy.

So basically, we have to put our hopes on the protests.


----------



## Xion (Feb 23, 2011)

I think Libya's Dear Leader's regime will be done by the end of the week. He'll either flee the country, die, or resign. In that order.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Feb 23, 2011)

I hope the Military Regime in Libya put a round in Gaddafi's head then tout his body round town then Burn it then piss and take a crap on the ash's then burn them again then put them in the ground.

Really Peacefully uprisings only lasted until it hit Libya.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 23, 2011)

kayanathera said:


> what is the most embarassing is UE complete lack of reaction not only to the libyan situation but also to the tunisian one.the italians are screaming about waves of immigrants,some idiot is droping bombs on its own people,all in the UE backyard and reaction is zero


What are you talking about? Most diplomatically relevant EU countries have made individual statements condemning Gaddafi and supporting the Tunisian and Egyptian movements (even Italia ended up doing so if I recall correctly), and so has the EU as an entity.

The EU is also currently debating sanctions. I'm not sure what can be called "embarassing" about this. Though now I'm getting curious. Are you getting your informations from the Sun or the Washington Post or some similar "newspaper", by any chance? Where are you from?



Hellrasinbrasin said:


> I hope the Military Regime in Libya put a round in Gaddafi's head then tout his body round town then Burn it then piss and take a crap on the ash's then burn them again then put them in the ground.
> 
> Really Peacefully uprisings only lasted until it hit Libya.


I wonder what kind of effect this will have on other Arab revolts. It had been demonstrated to them that revolution was possible -- and twice, and with relatively tame consequences at least in the short term... Now, we get the demonstration of the disaster scenario: what if the worst possible thing happened at every stage of the revolt?


----------



## Darklyre (Feb 23, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Not to mention that, as explained earlier, I would only be a hypocrite if I hadn't already condemned France's actions with Gaddafi numerous times before. edit: including in the first page of this thread.
> 
> Having a relatively simplistic mode of thought, kayanatera identified me with my national origin instead of making the effort of judging my character.
> 
> ...



Nah, I wasn't calling you a hypocrite, though I can see why you'd take it that way. I was just pointing out kayanatera's fallacy.


----------



## Adagio (Feb 23, 2011)

Eh, Italy has been a little careful with the comments regarding Lybia. If I recall, Berlusconi hasn't made a direct statement condemning Geddafi, but only on the violent acts that were happening. He's playing it careful, for some reason. Even though I doubt at this point Geddafi actually will manage to stay in power after his last speech. He's a psychopath and he's totally out of touch with reality. 

Oh, and the likelihood that the price of oil to reach the astounding $150 per barrel mark is increasing day by day. Yay!


----------



## Punpun (Feb 23, 2011)

He also had a 20 min conversation with kaddafi on the phone.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 23, 2011)

ximkoyra said:


> This is the same guy who said that Muslims in Switzerland should engage in jihad or something and make the Swiss pay for the minaret thing.  He can do and say anything he wants to, except have a nuclear program since that would challenge Israel's hegemony of the region, and he will be accepted.  If Ahmedinejad were to scrap Iran's nuclear program today, you would probably see Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, and all these other idiots schmoozing it up with him in a matter of weeks.
> 
> Human rights is an issue that's only brought up when people are trying to push their agenda.  Nobody actually cares



Pretty much this.

If not, then how come Gadaffi was embraced by the "international community" right after he gave up his nukes in 2005?


----------



## Mael (Feb 23, 2011)

I wonder where that Lockerbie bomber is in all of this.

Is he dead yet?


----------



## impersonal (Feb 23, 2011)

Adagio said:


> Even though I doubt at this point Geddafi actually will manage to stay in power after his last speech. He's a psychopath and he's totally out of touch with reality.



That said, he's been like that for a while. So the craziness of the speech probably didn't come as a surprise to Libyans.

This is the same guy who said that Muslims in Switzerland should engage in jihad or something and make the Swiss pay for the minaret thing. He can do and say anything he wants to, except have a nuclear program since that would challenge Israel's hegemony of the region, and he will be accepted. If Ahmedinejad were to scrap Iran's nuclear program today, you would probably see Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, and all these other idiots schmoozing it up with him in a matter of weeks.


			
				Jin-E said:
			
		

> Pretty much this.
> 
> If not, then how come Gadaffi was embraced by the "international community" right after he gave up his nukes in 2005?


Gadaffi has a handicap, his disastrous image.
He has an advantage, his oil production / oil money.

In 2005, with Gadaffi's most serious crimes relatively far back in the past (thus getting forgotten by the public), and oil prices rising extremely high, oil outweighted public outrage.

You have to look at it like this: let Pg be the probability to welcome Gadaffi with open arms. Let Op be oil prices. Let Po be public outrage.
Pg = Op/(Op+Po)  _[I know this doesn't make much mathematical sense, but you get the idea]_

The current events will _very significantly_ increase the public outrage and thus the probability will get much lower, even considering rising oil prices.

Besides, all of this has shown that Gadaffi is not as much of a guarantee of stability as was previously thought, so even his "oil value" is affected by this crisis.


----------



## Mael (Feb 23, 2011)

I wonder if China's who squashing of knowledge over Libya and Egypt is more over securing oil investments (Libya) or for simply not having their people break out of a hive mind.


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 23, 2011)

I think there is a good chance Gaddafi will survive this.


----------



## Mael (Feb 23, 2011)

masamune1 said:


> I think there is a good chance Gaddafi will survive this.



He does have a built-in jetpack.


----------



## Adagio (Feb 23, 2011)

masamune1 said:


> I think there is a good chance Gaddafi will survive this.



If he manages to escape the country I can see him surviving, but if we decide to go along with his comment regarding him not leaving Lybia eventually he will be found.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 23, 2011)

I think the point was that there's a sizeable chance he'll remain in power. At what price? Who knows.


----------



## Adagio (Feb 23, 2011)

I really really doubt he'll remain in power, especially after crossing the "shooting at your own civilians" line. The eastern regions are no longer under his control and two major tribes that were traditionally in the western regions and who also control some of the major oil supply lines have not supported him. So he's pretty much screwed. 

The only thing that might change is how many people he wants to take down with him really.


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 23, 2011)

Well, certainly, if things look like they are not going to go his way I fully expect him to run. I see Gaddafi as a psychopath in the same vein as Idi Amin, albeit not so bloosthirsty. He's full of hot air, and all this talk about "martydom" and all that stuff is just to rally supporters and appear defiant. If push comes to shove, and he can't hack it, he'll run. He _is_ in touch with reality; he knows exactly what he's doing. He's playing the game, and deciding whether or not to cut his losses.

But he isn't facing the kind of opposition that Mubarak faced, and he has shown a much greater willingness to use deadly force, and with a degree of success. He'll come out of this weakened, but I think he could still remain in power.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 23, 2011)

impersonal said:


> That said, he's been like that for a while. So the craziness of the speech probably didn't come as a surprise to Libyans.
> 
> This is the same guy who said that Muslims in Switzerland should engage in jihad or something and make the Swiss pay for the minaret thing. He can do and say anything he wants to, except have a nuclear program since that would challenge Israel's hegemony of the region, and he will be accepted. If Ahmedinejad were to scrap Iran's nuclear program today, you would probably see Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, and all these other idiots schmoozing it up with him in a matter of weeks.
> 
> ...



Sound analysis.

There are 2 important distinctions to make though.

1.) I think its important to emphasize(as you did) that this only applies to regimes that dont have WMD capabilities or have turned it over. Iraq in the early 2000's and current Iran shares alot of the characteristics, as in most of their human rights violations occuring decades ago and being major oil producers. Yet, they were clearly never accepted into the fold precisely for their dubious and unclear WMD status.

2.) It only applies to entreanched dictatorships that has existed since atleast the Cold War. The major players in the international community(bar Russia&China) would not support.....say a new military junta in Brazil just  because it was a relatively benign dictatorship and it was logical from a purely economical standpoint.


----------



## xenopyre (Feb 23, 2011)

Also according to Aljazeera a Libyan Battleship defects to Malta After Refusing Orders To Shell Benghazi.


----------



## kayanathera (Feb 23, 2011)

Soon Malta will become a maritime military power


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Feb 23, 2011)

Mael said:


> He does have a built-in jetpack.



Most Bond villains do have some sort of elaborate escape plan ready, but not many of them ever get away.


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 23, 2011)

Nick Soapdish said:


> Most Bond villains do have some sort of elaborate escape plan ready, but not many of them ever get away.



Hmmmm....No. Most don't.

Some do, most die before escape becomes an issue. And they are usually not _that_ elaborate anyway.


----------



## stream (Feb 23, 2011)

Adagio said:


> I really really doubt he'll remain in power, especially after crossing the "shooting at your own civilians" line. The eastern regions are no longer under his control and two major tribes that were traditionally in the western regions and who also control some of the major oil supply lines have not supported him. So he's pretty much screwed.
> 
> The only thing that might change is how many people he wants to take down with him really.



You might remember that Saddam Hussein was practically in the same situation right after the first Gulf War. Shiites and Kurds rebelled at the same time, and were ruthlessly repressed. What did the US and Europe do to stop him? Nothing, zero, nada. Not only did he stay in power, he even kicked out the UN inspectors after a while. In fact, Saddam has done worse against his own civilians, considering he even tested chemical weapons on them.

It is only because Saddam was accused of having a WMD arsenal and of helping Al-Qaeda that the US went to take him down. And it did not go so well, and the accusations have turned out to be without much basis. So now, you would need to make a much stronger case to get rid of Gaddafi. Can you see Obama telling to Congress and the American people that yet another oil-rich country should be freed from dictatorship? What is the difference between the two, really?

So, if Gaddafi manages to crush the rebellion, I think it is pretty clear that he will stay exactly where he is, and for many years to come. Any help from the US and Europe has to come NOW, while the rebellion is still going on, or it will never come. And so far, I see much dragging of feet, but not much action.

Message to the Libyans: Please go ahead and get rid of him, but on no account should you expect help from outside. Sorry.


----------



## Adagio (Feb 23, 2011)

I'm not familiar with what happened during the first Gulf War, but did Saddam have to face almost half of his nation against him? Because currently most of Eastern Lybia is not under his control. The tribe that controls the oil supply lines (the key factor in all of this) was always resistant to his rule but now they are outwardly against him. I don't see how he can come out of this unless he murders most of his country. 

I'm pretty sure the reason why any Western power has not even voiced the possibility of them intervening is out of fear from potential backlash from the Muslim world. They'll think its Iraq all over again. Best not to bother.


----------



## iander (Feb 23, 2011)

They'd be better off enforcing a no fly zone, imposing sanctions, and supplying aid/arms to the protesters rather than a military invasion.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 23, 2011)

xenopyre said:


> Also according to Aljazeera a Libyan Battleship defects to Malta After Refusing Orders To Shell Benghazi.



Libya doesn't have any battleships. Probably was Libya's Koni Class Corvette. Only ships the Libyan navy has that'd be useful for shelling. Their Osa's just have 30mm point defense guns.

Also there are reports that pilots are crashing their aircraft and ejecting at the last minute as a means of crippling the air force.

Lastly, here's a pic of an overrun Libyan SA-2 SAM site I came across:


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 23, 2011)

It looks like Benghazi is under protester control. 

And apparently protesters are beginning to worry that Gaddafi might resort to chemical and biological weapons. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12556005


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 23, 2011)

Saw a vid from a eastern city called Derna where you can see atleast 20+ people in military clothes bound and shot execution style. Its probably mutinous troops


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 23, 2011)

The rebels have also been lynching these African mercenaries the last few days, the Libyans really hate them. You almost feel sorry for the guys by this point. They're trapped in a foreign country surrounded by enemies who kill them on sight with no means of escape.

Course on the other hand they got themselves into this mess, so you reap what you sow.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Feb 23, 2011)

This will only escalate.

Not sure if this is allowed but:



The amount will only climb imho until a climax has been reached.


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 23, 2011)

Rob said:


> And apparently protesters are beginning to worry that Gaddafi might resort to chemical and biological weapons. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12556005



Shit, if it comes to that, the West should really consider air raids and weapon dropings ! If not, they'd be the same, if not worse accomplices to a dictator's crimes than ever, because of all the media attention for the popular uprisings in the M-E.

Sur, invading would be seen as opportunism, but there are many other means to help the people.


----------



## stream (Feb 23, 2011)

Utopia Realm said:


> This will only escalate.
> 
> Not sure if this is allowed but:
> 
> ...



There is no real reason for that... Saudi Arabia has pledged to compensate for the loss of production in Libya. This only serves as barometer of fear in the investors... Or as a barometer of how much investors think other investors are afraid, it's always complicated with speculation.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 23, 2011)

Apparently, some people are afraid that the unrest might touch Saudi Arabia as well. This doesn't seem likely at this point though...


... As for Gadaffi, with everyday that passes it becomes less likely that this will end well.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 23, 2011)

impersonal said:


> ... As for Gadaffi, with everyday that passes it becomes less likely that this will end well.



They're worried now that he may employ his remaining chemical weapons, and given who they're dealing with I say it's a justifiable concern. If that happens then NATO should start considering an intervention imo. At the very least they should enforce a no-fly zone to keep the Libyan air force out of rebel areas, it would prevent an effective delivery of his chemical weapons.

Also, found this map that supposedly outlines the current situation:


----------



## Utopia Realm (Feb 23, 2011)

stream said:


> There is no real reason for that... Saudi Arabia has pledged to compensate for the loss of production in Libya. This only serves as barometer of fear in the investors... Or as a barometer of how much investors think other investors are afraid, it's always complicated with speculation.



I'd say a cheap reason to up the price of oil but that's not my expertise. The price may go down after this whole situation with Libya though.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Feb 23, 2011)




----------



## Jin-E (Feb 23, 2011)

Meh. He already survived decades as a pariah, China will veto any meaningful SC resolution and the UNHRC.....After seeing who the current members are, there needs to be atleast 1-2 African countries that cosign any resolution for it to have majority, since Russia, Ecuador and Cuba might vote against or abstain. Most Middle East nations will do the same.


----------



## NeophyteNihilist (Feb 24, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president whose security forces crushed protests against his 2009 re-election, has also condemned state brutality against demonstrators in Libya.
> 
> "How can a leader subject his own people to a shower of machine-guns, tanks and bombs? How can a leader bomb his own people," he said, and urged Gaddafi to listen to his people."




Wow, what a hypocrite.  Apparently it's only okay to use batons, pepper spray, sticks and, less rapid firing guns on one's own civilians.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Feb 24, 2011)

NeophyteNihilist said:


> Wow, what a hypocrite.  Apparently it's only okay to use batons, pepper spray, sticks and, less rapid firing guns on one's own civilians.



Unless you can prove absolute similarity between the situations faced by both leaders, you can hardly call either of them hypocrites.  Call them evil, or excessive, but don't devalue the word "hypocrite" by using it where it isn't needed.


----------



## NeophyteNihilist (Feb 24, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Unless you can prove absolute similarity between the situations faced by both leaders, you can hardly call either of them hypocrites.  Call them evil, or excessive, but don't devalue the word "hypocrite" by using it where it isn't needed.



Both leaders faced large scale protests and reacted with violence, even against peaceful protesters.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or at least someone in his government condoned state brutality during the 2009 election protests and then later condemned similar actions by another government.  I'd say this makes Ahmadinejad "a person who acting in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings", and therefore a hypocrite.

I will concede that the violence in Iran was not as severe as the violence in Libya, but the situations had many similarities.

Both were also evil and excessive as well, of course.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 24, 2011)

Libyan opposition figure claims 10,000 killed in one week


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 24, 2011)

Libya: Gaddafi blames Osama Bin Laden for protests

I sense desperation from his rants.


----------



## Mael (Feb 24, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> Libya: Gaddafi blames Osama Bin Laden for protests
> 
> I sense desperation from his rants.



He was always loony...so this is nothing new.

But I still think he's fucked.  I just wish bigger fish would fry instead of him.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 24, 2011)

So, is he actually going to hunt rebels house-by-house or is he just trolling? :/


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 24, 2011)

Rebels as Masrata airport celebrate after repulsing an attack by Chadian Mercenaries and Gaddaffi's elite British-trained Al Hamza Brigade:


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 24, 2011)

NeophyteNihilist said:


> Both leaders faced large scale protests and reacted with violence, even against peaceful protesters.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or at least someone in his government condoned state brutality during the 2009 election protests and then later condemned similar actions by another government.  I'd say this makes Ahmadinejad "a person who acting in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings", and therefore a hypocrite.
> 
> I will concede that the violence in Iran was not as severe as the violence in Libya, but the situations had many similarities.
> 
> Both were also evil and excessive as well, of course.


You're grasping, they're different types of leadership and in the case of Iran they're pretty much like this BECAUSE they rebelled before and its their own fault. They actually chose to go this route and it back fired for them. 

Hypocrisy only works well in nearly identical conditions. 

If a fat girl is told by a toned fit guy that he won't date her because she's too fat, it's not hypocrisy even if he's got a double down in his hand because he's not in the same situation as her.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Feb 24, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Rebels as Masrata airport celebrate after repulsing an attack by Chadian Mercenaries and Gaddaffi's elite British-trained Al Hamza Brigade:


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 24, 2011)

Utopia Realm said:


> You think he will bust out the more serious weapons in his arsenal if/when Tripoli airport is taken?



Probably. Gaddaffi's best unit is known as the 32nd "Khamis Al-Gaddaffi" Special Forces Brigade and is currently entrenched around his stronghold in Tripoli. These guys are pretty capable, having been trained by the British SAS (in exchange for oil) and are armed with modern Belgian weapons such as the FN2000, FNC, and P90 small arms that would make them pretty dangerous in the close range urban combat. In addition since they're made up of Gaddaffi's tribesmen (the Gaddafa Tribe) they'll fight fanatically.

I would place these guys as the most dangerous thing he has left. I was worried that he would fire off his Scud-B missiles at Bengazhi once it fell, which could have caused catastrophic damage to civilians, but it seems like he lost control of his SSM Brigades, else he would have done so by now.

It should be noted that most of Libya's heavy armor and artillery (including its unit with T-72 tanks) was massed along with the western border with Egypt and southern border with Chad, due to past conflicts with both countries. Both of these regions are now in rebel hands and I think it's likely that they possess most of his heavy weapons.

Gaddaffi's air and naval power seems largely broken due to mutinies, it sure as hell hasn't helped him so far. If the Libyan air force or navy was going to be decisive it would have been so by now I imagine. But if he does manage to effectively organize an air attack by his rather large air force (for African standards anyway), it will be catastrophic to the rebels. However if it comes to this I think NATO should establish air superiority over the Western aprt of the country, enforce a no-fly zone, and this would quickly deal with his air force.

Though the other wild card he has left are his chemical weapons. He supposedly gave up his WMD's in 2004 but I sincerely doubt a man like that gets rid of every chemical weapon he has left. If he pulls a Saddam and uses those on his people then this entire situation will change quite dramatically. That's another reason I think the international community should ground his air force, as it would severe his best way to deliver chemical weapons. Take his air force and all he has left are his field artillery, which while still deadly can't be used outside his own radius.


----------



## xenopyre (Feb 25, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Probably. Gaddaffi's best unit is known as the 32nd "Khamis Al-Gaddaffi" Special Forces Brigade and is currently entrenched around his stronghold in Tripoli. These guys are pretty capable, having been trained by the British SAS (in exchange for oil) and are armed with modern Belgian weapons such as the FN2000, FNC, and P90 small arms that would make them pretty dangerous in the close range urban combat. In addition since they're made up of Gaddaffi's tribesmen (the Gaddafa Tribe) they'll fight fanatically.
> 
> I would place these guys as the most dangerous thing he has left. I was worried that he would fire off his Scud-B missiles at Bengazhi once it fell, which could have caused catastrophic damage to civilians, but it seems like he lost control of his SSM Brigades, else he would have done so by now.
> 
> ...


Actually according to Aljazeera , One of Khadafy's closest aides, his cousin Ahmed Gadhaf al-Dam, announced that he had defected to Egypt in protest of the regime's bloody crackdown against the uprising. So I dont think his tribesmen would be that loyal to him .


----------



## soulnova (Feb 25, 2011)

Guys, I just want to confirm the following with you. Several sources, abc, cnn, etc.



> As protests against the Libyan leader took place in other parts of the country's capital city, Gaddafi stated that "*we are ready to triumph over the enemy*" and "*the people who don't love me deserve to die*."







> Libya's deputy U.N. ambassador, Ibrahim Dabbashi, who denounced Libyan leader Gaddafi earlier this week,said that he expects the death toll to rise.
> 
> He said: 'This [Gaddafi] is a madman and he is psychologically not stable. He will stay until the moment he is either (killed) or he will commit suicide.
> 
> ...







> Addressing hundreds of cheering supporters from the old city ramparts looking over Tripoli's Green Square, Mr Gaddafi, wearing a winter jacket and a hunter's cap that covered his ears, said when necessary *he would open Libya's arsenals of guns to the tribes*.





Today shit will go down. My best wishes to anyone there. They'll need all the luck they can get.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 25, 2011)




----------



## Jin-E (Feb 25, 2011)




----------



## Ennoea (Feb 25, 2011)

> As protests against the Libyan leader took place in other parts of the country's capital city, Gaddafi stated that "we are ready to triumph over the enemy" and "the people who don't love me deserve to die."



He's like a bad ex lover, just refuses to fuck off.


----------



## alchemy1234 (Feb 26, 2011)

man this asshole gaddafi, he's one savage mother f**ker.


----------



## Benzaiten (Feb 26, 2011)

I've heard of this several days ago and man, I am enraged. Honestly, what the flying fuck is wrong with this genocidal maniac? And no, you don't need to answer me, that was a rhetorical question. 

Also, can anyone tell me what other countries have done about this? I skimmed through a few of the latest pages but all I've seen are posts about Italy playing it safe and European countries being too busy. I'm not too updated with this issue and I don't know much about it either so it would help if you could share what you know.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 26, 2011)

European countries generally suckled on his oil-lactating tits in the last years so they're in a difficult spot in regards to their own interests.

But I'm really surprised Libya ended up like it did, I underestimated the rage of the protestors / overestimated Gadaffi. Who will "win" in the end is the question.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 26, 2011)

Lol, I knew he was friends with Gaddaffi but he's taking a more hardline position then even the Iranians. But for a man that welcomes Omar Al-Bashir it's hardly a surprise.


----------



## Mael (Feb 26, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Lol, I knew he was friends with Gaddaffi but he's taking a more hardline position then even the Iranians. But for a man that welcomes Omar Al-Bashir it's hardly a surprise.



He apparently claims the people aren't being supported.

Well the people clearly don't support his position or Gaddaffi.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 26, 2011)

Mael said:


> He apparently claims the people aren't being supported



If you look at it in the context you see where he is really going with this. First he says that the West is only opposing Gaddaffi for its oil interests, regardless of the fact that Gaddaffi was the source of Western oil and Europe in particular supported him for years because of oil. Secondly, these sanctions would hinder their oil exports, so I don't get his argument that the West is only doing these sanctions out of oil interests. Moreover the "people will suffer" argument only worked in Iraq because it was still a relatively stable country ruled by Saddam, Libya is in a total state of disarray and civil war right now and it won't go on for a decade like Iraq's did. And since Gaddaffi is not in control of most of the country anymore, these areas can be aided by the international community to avoid humanitarian suffering if it even comes to that.

Moreover, Erdogan has maintained a platform this entire time that Turkish diplomats will neither condemn or support Gaddaffi, yet even the Iranians have (rather hypocritically) come out and issued a flat-out condemnation.  He has also refused to renounce the "human rights award" he enthusiastically received from Gaddaffi last year despite explicit calls from elements in Turkey to do so.

Basically the way I see it, his argument against sanctions makes no sense and he's just trying to bring up visions of Iraq to try and stop them.


----------



## Mael (Feb 26, 2011)

Very true.  Saddam for all his warts kept Iraq stable.  This is just a clusterfuck of rebels no longer wanting him in, and good for them.  The UN stepping in is the right thing because it's a good sign that he's gotta go.  If he's smart he'll concede and appeal to the UN, but seeing his ranting and raving methinks he's that dumb to actually stay and "martyr" himself.

I wonder if the Turkish population even bother listening to Erdo sometimes.


----------



## N120 (Feb 26, 2011)

What Erdogan was saying is true and he's not the only person whose against them, many here in the UK are also opposed to any sanctions for the same reason. They'll have little to no effect on whats happening right now in the short term, and IF gaddafi survives this and still remains in power (i doubt it) it wont affect him one bit, it'll still only hurt the people in the long run.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 26, 2011)

Zaru said:


> European countries generally suckled on his oil-lactating tits in the last years so they're in a difficult spot in regards to their own interests.
> 
> But I'm really surprised Libya ended up like it did, I underestimated the rage of the protestors / overestimated Gadaffi. Who will "win" in the end is the question.



It's not that difficult. Declare all support for the protesters and hope they don't notice where all of Gaddafi's weapons come from.

Also I really need to stop using the word 'protester', 'rebel' feels more appropriate at this point.


----------



## Toby (Feb 26, 2011)

There are other good reasons to oppose sanctions. Mainly, that it doesn't help the people. Second, it probably makes fighting the people a lot easier. And who is fighting the people right now?

Third, the goal of these sanctions is supposedly to harm Gaddafi. But if you asked a teenager the question of who is most likely to be hooked up with stash in case of conflict, I'm sure the dictator would be the answer, as opposed to the starving oppressed masses.

A no-fly zone is a good idea though. Bombing Gaddafi's ancient fortress is a great idea too.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 26, 2011)

It seems to me that the sanctions are a symbolic gesture sending a message of condemnation against Gandafi. In the case of Erdogan, he does not support them for disagreeing with sending that message rather on other grounds.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Feb 27, 2011)

.  



> n a White House statement on Obama's telephone call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Obama took his most direct position yet on the escalating violence in Libya.
> 
> "The president stated that when a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now," it said.



Seems like a consensus is developing


----------



## pikachuwei (Feb 27, 2011)

so they said gadafi will stand before international criminal courts...

boy that SURE IS an incentive to get him to stop bombing people rite


----------



## soulnova (Feb 27, 2011)

pikachuwei said:


> so they said gadafi will stand before international criminal courts...
> 
> boy that SURE IS an incentive to get him to stop bombing people rite



Gaddafi:


That would be the icing on the cake.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 27, 2011)

...





> 1258: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the most vocal of colonel's sons during the revolt, has denied the freezing of his family' overseas assets will have any effect because, he says, they have none. He told CNN: "We are a very modest family and everybody knows that. They are saying we have money in Europe or Switzerland. Come on. It's a joke."



I lol'd


----------



## Xion (Feb 27, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> ...
> 
> I lol'd



The same Saif al-Islam who threw lavish parties on Caribbean islands with Mariah Carey and Usher singing as he drowned himself in alcohol and call girls?


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 27, 2011)

According to Al Jazeera Gaddaffi loyalist tanks and mercenaries have surrounded the city of Zawiyah in a counteroffensive. This is gonna be a bloody brawl, rebel RPG-7's are gonna rip those tanks to pieces in the streets.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 27, 2011)

If they can hold both Zawiyah and Misrata(the two major towns closest to Tripoli from the West and East respectively), the rebel can do a two front push move on Tripoli. 

From what i heard, there's a key coastal town called Surt, that's reputed to be very loyal to Gaddafi, that seperates Misrata from Eastern Libya, which means the rebels are unable to send in reinforcements from Benghazi, Al Baida if they dont get that town on their side or straight up conquer it.




			
				Xion said:
			
		

> The same Saif al-Islam who threw lavish parties on Caribbean islands with Mariah Carey and Usher singing as he drowned himself in alcohol and call girls?



I'd do it to if i was a dictator son in a desert hellhole


----------



## Escargon (Feb 27, 2011)

*is his name Gadaffi or Khadaffi? Muammar Khadaffi sounds alot better. Tbh i hope the arabian parts finally get peace. He will go down be so sure.

And oh Khadaffi looks so funny. Like Haddock some says..*


----------



## NanoHaxial (Feb 27, 2011)

The best part is Libya being on the Human Rights Council.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Feb 27, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> According to Al Jazeera Gaddaffi loyalist tanks and mercenaries have surrounded the city of Zawiyah in a counteroffensive. This is gonna be a bloody brawl, rebel RPG-7's are gonna rip those tanks to pieces in the streets.


Guess Egypt's peaceful overthrow of Mumbarak was just a fluke if it's neighbor is going into full on civil war now.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 27, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Guess Egypt's peaceful overthrow of Mumbarak was just a fluke if it's neighbor is going into full on civil war now.



It's the opposite. Khaddafi is "special", even among blood thirsty dictators.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 27, 2011)

NanoHaxial said:


> The best part is Libya being on the Human Rights Council.



There's a few articles out in Israel that talks about how the UN and most of the West should be ashamed of themselves regarding Libya:





Yes the UN is making a strong show against Gaddaffi now, but only when he has shown his true colors and horrified the global media. We've known Gaddaffi has been a nut for years, during the same period the UN was elevating Libya on a pedestal and dubbing Gaddaffi's mental state as only the quirks of an "eccentric statesman". 

Hopefully the Libya fiasco leads to a complete reform of the UNHRC (again), but I sincerely doubt it will. I think something that is telling about the international community and Libya these last few years is that there have been 50 UNHRC resolutions since it was "reformed": 35 have targeted Israel (70%) but not 1 has targeted Libya.



			
				SuperSaiyanMan12 said:
			
		

> Guess Egypt's peaceful overthrow of Mumbarak was just a fluke if it's neighbor is going into full on civil war now.



Mubarak was a brutal dick, but he wasn't insane and had the best interests of Egypt at heart. He could have gone the Gaddaffi route and could have rallied his loyalist forces (elements of the secret police and Republican Guard) as well as hired African mercenaries, but chose to simply step down to avoid a civil war. 

Expect the leaders of Bahrain and Jordan to follow the Mubarak example, while I think Assad in Syria will go the way of Gaddaffi should he be challenged.

Also here's some combat footage:


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 28, 2011)

Looks like the rebels shot down a jet 



> Libyan forces have been launched fresh offensives again Zawieh, 30 miles from Tripoli, and Misrata, 125 miles to the east. Rebels said some 2,000 troops loyal to the regime had surrounded Zawieh, but that they had succeeded in holding on to the town centres.
> 
> *"An aircraft was shot down this morning while it was firing on the local radio station,"* a witness, who was identified only as Mohamed, said by telephone from Misrata.
> 
> ...





"Yeah, hundreds of civilians have died, but we never ordered the military to do that"


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 28, 2011)

Managing to actually shoot down a fighter jet with 14.5mm/23mm AAA is pretty sad, I wonder what kind it was. If it was one of Libya's J-21's or Super Galeb's maybe it'll be more forgivable.


----------



## kayanathera (Feb 28, 2011)

I dont know if this is true or not but apparently Gadhafi has an Amazons Guard formed entirely by women and official propaganda claims they are all virgins(quite similar with Leto Atreides and his lesbian Fish Speakers).enjoy


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 28, 2011)

In other news, i think Hillary made a pretty good speech in the UNHRC just now.


----------



## Mael (Feb 28, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> In other news, i think Hillary made a pretty good speech in the UNHRC just now.



All for naught since she's a Western woman in a council with a lot of Middle Eastern nations.


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 28, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> In other news, i think Hillary made a pretty good speech in the UNHRC just now.



got a link where I can read/listen?


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 28, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> got a link where I can read/listen?



Havent seen any online replay/transcript yet, but it will eventually pop up


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 28, 2011)

It doesn't have all of Clinton's speech but some quotes from it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12593481


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 28, 2011)

Oy Vey 

Not to mention this is pretty ironic considering how sympathetic we are to their cause.


----------



## Mael (Feb 28, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Oy Vey
> 
> Not to mention this is pretty ironic considering how sympathetic we are to their cause.



Doesn't matter...ya still be teh J00z.

And Libya's educational/rationale score is...how low?


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 28, 2011)

I think the purpose is more that they want to demonize him with the symbol they hate the most. It certainly seems more likely than actually believing Gaddafi is a "Zionist puppet"despite his supposed Jewish ancestry. If not, then i'm afraid the Arab world's retardation has gone down a notch further.


----------



## Coteaz (Feb 28, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Oy Vey
> 
> Not to mention this is pretty ironic considering how sympathetic we are to their cause.


Don't be so sad, Mega. Maybe you'll have another hostile state to play around with after this is done.


----------



## Darklyre (Feb 28, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> I think the purpose is more that they want to demonize him with the symbol they hate the most. It certainly seems more likely than actually believing Gaddafi is a "Zionist puppet"despite his supposed Jewish ancestry. If not, then i'm afraid the Arab world's retardation has gone down a notch further.



It's like calling someone a Communist Nazi Jew.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 28, 2011)

Here's a pic of Gaddaffi's son I came across, passing out weapons to "pro-Gaddaffi protesters":



Those are clearly G36's, didn't know Libya had those. Guess we can add Germany to the list of guilty European countries who have been secretly arming him these last few years (Belgium, UK, and Italy).


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 28, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Here's a pic of Gaddaffi's son I came across, passing out weapons to "pro-Gaddaffi protesters":
> 
> 
> 
> Those are clearly G36's, didn't know Libya had those. Guess we can add Germany to the list of guilty European countries who have been secretly arming him these last few years (Belgium, UK, and Italy).



If we can't start our own wars anymore, we can at least fuel others around the world


----------



## Xyloxi (Feb 28, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> If we can't start our own wars anymore, we can at least fuel others around the world



Even when you do start your own wars you're not very original about it, concentration camps were our idea, get your own way of imprisonment!


----------



## NeophyteNihilist (Feb 28, 2011)

Here's a complete video of the Clinton speech:

Its a good listen if you are a bit behind on recent human rights news.  I must admit I somehow missed the news about Côte d'Ivoire.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 28, 2011)

I don't have time to watch the whole thing but I've watched part of it and I must say it's nice to hear politicians talk so plainly and strongly.


----------



## Altron (Feb 28, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12603320


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 2, 2011)

Bit of an update:

Rebels have defeated Gaddaffi's first real counteroffensive in the war, focused on the city of Brega. It seems like the attack was quashed after only mere hours and the rebels actually chased down the retreating Gaddaffi forces. It seems Gaddaffi has a major problem when it comes to reliable manpower.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya

I think it's pretty clear by this point this is going to be a drawn out civil war, lasting perhaps even months. Hopefully the world doesn't forget about it.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 4, 2011)

Update: Gadaffi is still a nutter. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12652613


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 5, 2011)

Standoff in Zawiyah continues. Seems like the pro-Gaddafi forces have completely encircled it, while a couple of thousand rebels are in the city center.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 5, 2011)

This really just shows what horrible shape the Libyan army was in. Both his loyal troops and the rebels (which are made up heavily of defected soldiers) just have absolutely no idea what they're doing from what I've seen, it's a reason this is going to drag on even longer.

Case in point:



Doing that to a recoilless gun like it's a 18th century cannon.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 5, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> Doing that to a recoilless gun like it's a 18th century cannon.



I know its a serious situation, but that made me just laugh hard


According to reports, Gaddafi deliberately weakened the army to prevent coups. This only confirms the truth of that hypothesis


----------



## Adagio (Mar 5, 2011)

Is Gaddafi still employing mercenaries from neighbouring countries in Northern Africa or are his forces mainly composed of his supporters now?


----------



## iander (Mar 6, 2011)

I actually read a report from Human Rights Watch that was saying that much of the people thought to be mercenaries in East Libya were actually black Libyans from southern Libya who are fighting for Gaddafi because they are poor and also apparently due to Gaddafi's anti-racism policies that saved them from discrimination.  Though they said they couldn't confirm the same is true in the West and they said it was most likely true that Gaddafi is using mercs.

Also, another interesting story:

Apparently, a rebel shot down an SU-24 fighter-bomber of Gaddafi's forces with a ZU-23-2 , a 23mm AA gun from the 60s with only one barrel actually working (on his first day).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12657396


----------



## Patchouli (Mar 6, 2011)

So...who is winning?


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 6, 2011)

Misty said:


> So...who is winning?



Seems like it's a stalemate for now


----------



## Patchouli (Mar 6, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Seems like it's a stalemate for now



Well, it's pretty impressive that the rebels have held up this long. They must be well armed.

How about the war over Gaddafi. Has the media decided on a single transliteration of his name, or is he going to remain the man of a thousand spellings?


----------



## whatuwan (Mar 6, 2011)

Misty said:


> Well, it's pretty impressive that the rebels have held up this long. They must be well armed.
> 
> How about the war over Gaddafi. Has the media decided on a single transliteration of his name, or is he going to remain the man of a thousand spellings?


Banks are having a really hard time freezing his assets because of the many variations of his name's spelling.


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 6, 2011)

Misty said:


> Well, it's pretty impressive that the rebels have held up this long. They must be well armed.


more like Gadaffi's army being utterly incompetent.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 6, 2011)

iander said:


> Also, another interesting story:
> 
> Apparently, a rebel shot down an SU-24 fighter-bomber of Gaddafi's forces with a ZU-23-2 , a 23mm AA gun from the 60s with only one barrel actually working (on his first day).
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12657396



It's a good thing Libya hasn't fought a war with anyone in the last few decades. It's starting to become clear how they lost to chad 

Anyway the Rebels were driven out of Bin Jawad yesterday and just now have begun to counterattack. There's also reports of another Rebel force trying to move on Tripoli's outer defenses.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2011)

Gas prices dropped a little, awesome.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 6, 2011)

Some updates from Al Jazeera:

17:35 Al Jazeera Tanks and artillery are engaged in shelling Az Zawiya. Electricity, telephones and internet are still cut from the city
17: 33 Al Jazeera Gaddafi tanks are shelling Misratah from the western side
17:30 Al Jazeera Heavy presence of Gaddafi fighter jets and helicopters over the area of Brega right now


This seems like the big Gaddaffi counterattack everybody has been waiting for. Gonna be hard for the Rebels to endure this given their disorganized state.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 6, 2011)

The SAS team has been released. Que laughter at the 'best' special ops force getting detained like that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-team-released-by-libyan-rebels-2233867.html


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 6, 2011)

Heh they wanted to be in contact with the rebels didn't they.  Getting captured still counts as contact you know


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 6, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> Heh they wanted to be in contact with the rebels didn't they.  Getting captured still counts as contact you know



Nothing strengthens diplomatic relationships more than being rescued by the people you were sent to contact and hypothetically help.


----------



## iander (Mar 6, 2011)

> 7:15pm
> 
> Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel Hamid, reporting from Benghazi, reveals more about those newly released British soldiers - apparently on a "diplomatic mission".
> 
> ...



Pretty hilarious.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 6, 2011)

Rebels are experiencing a series of setbacks in the face of a loyalist counterattack:



> Insurgents pushed out of key foothold near leader’s hometown; "Gaddafi’s cut us to pieces," says one rebel; Gaddafi troops, backed by tanks, artillery, warplanes, helicopters attack towns of Zawiyah, Misrata.
> 
> Libyan forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi waged counter-offensives against rebel-held towns on Sunday as the popular uprising threatened to devolve into a full-fledged, protracted civil war.
> Gaddafi's troops, backed by tanks, artillery, warplanes and helicopters attacked the towns of Zawiyah and Misrata, to the immediate west and east of Tripoli, and positions near the oil port city of Ras Lanuf, 660 km (410 miles) east of the capital.
> ...






It took him a few weeks, but Gaddaffi finally mobilized his heavy weapons. If the Rebels don't get a real command structure/organization going and if they don't start figuring out how to use their captured artillery and armor, they're toast. Thus far they've only been a mob with AK's/RPG's and some AAA.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 6, 2011)

I also come baring pics, like a War Santa Clause:

*Rebel*













*Gaddaffi Loyalist*


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 6, 2011)

I like how mainstream media avoids calling something that walk, talk and act like a duck a duck. Situation is clearly a civil war, but as in Iraq 2005-2007, they dance around it and prefer to say "close to civil war" "on the verge of civil war" "steering into civil war" etc.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 7, 2011)

Is that a Sten ? They still use those ?


----------



## makeoutparadise (Mar 7, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Is that a Sten ? They still use those ?



I have a strong affection for that gun even though it was a piece of crap and if you ran into a tree holding the mag you could jam the gun lol


this calls for some music
 Zenga Zenga Gaddafi  Zenga Zenga 
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBY-0n4esNY&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 7, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Is that a Sten ? They still use those ?



Its actually a Sterling SMG,  not a Sten. It must have been kept in storage from the monarchy period, it hasn't been listed as a weapon in the Libyan army for decades. These days you only find Stens in India, Nepal, and Myanmar.

The rebels seem to have come across some old monarchy-era shit. Notice the Carcano Mod.91/24. That's 19th century tech right thar.

Anyway it seems like Syrian troops are now aiding Gaddaffi, dead Syrian pilots were found in the wreckage of his crashed aircraft:



These aren't freelance mercenaries like the ones from Africa as well, perhaps you could make that argument if these were just riflemen. However Syria has one of the worlds most controlled security apparatus' and do not have freelance pilot mercenaries, they're all in the state reserves in case of war with Israel. This makes it clear that Assad is trying to bail out his friend Momar.


----------



## Mael (Mar 7, 2011)

Ballsy gunner is ballsy.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 7, 2011)

ITT, we make fun of the soldiers ancient equipment and their rank amateurism


----------



## Mael (Mar 7, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> ITT, we make fun of the soldiers ancient equipment and their rank amateurism



Because when you've got that sophisticated technology to hit a gnat's ass from 800m out or destroy a building with a simple laser sight and a button, that's what you can do.

Motivation is another topic.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 7, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Libyan air defenses = serious shit.



If Saudi Arabia accepts the US's request to start arming the rebels, how do you think things will go?


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 7, 2011)

Rob said:


> If Saudi Arabia accepts the US's request to start arming the rebels, how do you think things will go?



The rebels don't have a problem with weapons as it is, most of Libyas heavy equipment (with the exception of its T-72 MBT's, air force, and Belgian tech anyway) were in the Western half of the country massed along the Egyptian border due to tensions with Mubarak, the Rebels found what is probably the largest arms cache in Africa. They have everything they need to win besides airpower, which the U.S. can't arm them with. The only solution for that is a no fly-zone.

Now that Gaddaffi's forces have recovered from the shock of the revolt and have begun to deploy their heavy weapons, the Rebels won't be able to win any time soon (if at all) unless they get A.) a no-fly zone B.) real command and control and C.) real strategy. These mobs running around with AK's firing into the air has to stop if they don't all want to die. Say what you want about Gaddaffi, but his loyalist forces are demonstrating they're far more disciplined.


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 8, 2011)

Zenga Zenga !!!!!!!!!


----------



## Adagio (Mar 8, 2011)

If NATO doesn't want to make any real commitment (including or excluding the no fly zone) they could always offer strategists and to restructure the Lybian rebel forces.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 8, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> ITT, we make fun of the soldiers ancient equipment and their rank amateurism



If those are soldiers then I'm Captain Fucking America.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 8, 2011)

photos would suggest that the Rebels have captured most of Libya's surface fleet. You see a Koni Class Corvette and a Nanuchka Class Missile Boat there, Gaddaffi's best ships.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Mar 8, 2011)

Looks like the rebels got thier hands on some good ships. I'm guessing the ships are going to be kept under lock and key or maybe some other unseen purpose MH?


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 8, 2011)

Utopia Realm said:


> Looks like the rebels got thier hands on some good ships. I'm guessing the ships are going to be kept under lock and key or maybe some other unseen purpose MH?



The rebels won't be doing anything with them. Loyalist aircraft would rip them to pieces if they tried to move on Tripoli anyway. I imagine when Gaddaffi sent the ships to shell Bengazi the crews simply docked in port and defected.

The rebels lack any kind of organization or command and control needed to use them effectively anyway.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 8, 2011)

Makes you wonder if the West had been more proactive if there had been no Afghanistan or Iraq war.


----------



## Adagio (Mar 8, 2011)

Most likely, but perhaps the US might have stayed out of this as Europe's interests are much higher in this region.


----------



## WakaFlocka (Mar 8, 2011)

America should only move into this conflict as part of NATO. Otherwise let the EU handle since as the above poster said there interests are more pertinent. Couldn't have picked a worse time though since Italy is occupied with Berlusconi's trial. They have the biggest problem seeing as it will be them that get flooded with immigrants as well as Malta.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 8, 2011)

Adagio said:


> Most likely, but perhaps the US might have stayed out of this as Europe's interests are much higher in this region.



IIRC, the US did take the driver seat during Kosovo(though under the NATO umbrella), so that isnt always the case

However, chances are the US would have been wary of intervening in Libya, with the bad experiences in Somalia 1994 in mind.


----------



## Mael (Mar 8, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Makes you wonder if the West had been more proactive if there had been no Afghanistan or Iraq war.



Well hindsight IS 20/20. 

I dunno though...would it be in pursuit of terror?


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 8, 2011)

Mael said:


> Well hindsight IS 20/20.
> 
> I dunno though...would it be in pursuit of terror?



Well, if we in this theorethical scenario exclude the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we would for realism sake also have to exclude the event that led to it, namely 9/11. And pre 9/11, most counter terrorism efforts consisted of long distance strikes.

And of course, if there had been no Iraq war, Gaddafi would like not have given up his nuclear capabilities, thus raising the stakes significantly. So the question of intervention would probably still be as difficult as it is now.

My bet is that the US would push for sanctions and flyzones and not put boots on the ground, kinda like how they dealt with it in the aftermath of the Anfal campaign in Iraq


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 8, 2011)

...........





> 1606: The BBC's Jeremy Bowen in Tripoli says people in Zawiya have reported fierce battles with pro-Gaddafi troops all day - they arrived with 50 tanks and 120 pick-up trucks. "I don't know how many are dead - Zawiya, they tore it down to ashes," one source told our correspondent.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 8, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> ...........



Well the media tends to call anything with armor a "tank", so that "150 tanks" figure could just be APC's. However I'd say the rebels at Zawiya are royally fucked, especially if there are indeed 150 actual tanks there in which case this battle will be over shortly.

I'll be pleasantly surprised by this point if the rebels still manage to win without outside support. It's very unlikely, but not impossible I guess. However it's clear that the longer this drags on the better Gaddaffi's position is becoming. I wonder if the international community will really sit by and watch the rebels be crushed.


----------



## Adagio (Mar 8, 2011)

If intervention does indeed happen on the part of the West I wonder how bad the backlash will be from the rest of the international community (Arab League, Russia, China ect)


----------



## Coteaz (Mar 8, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> I wonder if the international community will really sit by and watch the rebels be crushed.


Sure, why not? We only care about other countries when it benefits us.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 8, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> Sure, why not? We only care about other countries when it benefits us.


Stop being a social darwinist Coteaz.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 8, 2011)

> I wonder if the international community will really sit by and watch the rebels be crushed



The rhetoric coming out of the West for the last few weeks doesn't really make it seem much will happen. I honestly doubt it, sticking neutral is the best option for them.


----------



## Coteaz (Mar 8, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Stop being a social darwinist Coteaz.


I don't know, was I being sarcastic?

It's up to you.


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 8, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Stop being a social darwinist Coteaz.


is it gonna get us a staying brownie points with the locals if we do care and step-in ?


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 8, 2011)

A revelation I came across:



I'm pretty sure that's a Soviet ZAB-250 Incendiary bomb. Which would mean Gaddaffi is now attempting to use incendiary weapons against the Rebels. This makes little sense considering that Libya is all desert, but oh well both sides have proven themselves pretty clueless. None the less disturbing considering what it can do to civilians.

And on a less serious note, this is how the internet conducts its air defense:


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 8, 2011)

Adagio said:


> If intervention does indeed happen on the part of the West I wonder how bad the backlash will be from the rest of the international community (Arab League, Russia, China ect)



in these kinds of situations you really can't just sit by and watch, or you shouldn't.  libyans are committed to fighting, but are being destroyed by their own leadership. so they should probably be helped regardless of backlash.  this isn't like iraq, where nothing was going on and US just decided to kick down doors and shit on everything.  this is much more credible, and we'll embolden democratic movements everywhere. that's my current opinion.


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 8, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> in these kinds of situations you really can't just sit by and watch, or you shouldn't.  libyans are committed to fighting, but are being destroyed by their own leadership. so they should probably be helped regardless of backlash.  this isn't like iraq, where nothing was going on and US just decided to kick down doors and shit on everything.  this is much more credible, and we'll embolden democratic movements everywhere. that's my current opinion.



FapperWocky seems to have a point on this one.

Heavy Risk.........but the PRIZE.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 8, 2011)

On the other hand someone'll just go this is the US playing God-Emperor-Of-Mankind again and get pissy.  I don't think the US should spend the diplomatic capital required to shut down Ghadaffi.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 8, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> On the other hand someone'll just go this is the US playing God-Emperor-Of-Mankind again and get pissy.  I don't think the US should spend the diplomatic capital required to shut down Ghadaffi.



i would say that that could be true, if the people against it aren't just trying to protect their own repression.  China is against action in libya cause they don't want revolution at home, and the killing your own peeps option is likely part of their strategy to stop a revolution.  same for russia.

libyan rebels have put forth a platform that is democratic, and are committed to their cause.  gaddafi has gone far beyond anything mubarak has done, and the only thing he can do worse is to mustard gas the people, are we gonna wait for that?

libya isn't iraq, it's a good time to think about taking action.


----------



## iander (Mar 9, 2011)

Libyan rebels made a website:



Has interesting maps, info about the council, videos of groups that have joined the rebels, etc.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 9, 2011)

^^^
It's twitter site:


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 9, 2011)

Gaddaffi forces have overrun Zawiyah today, the rebels retreated after taking some 40 dead. Things are getting worse for them day by day it seems. So much for them marching on Tripoli.

Also a BBC crew was beaten/tortured by Gaddaffi forces.


----------



## Coteaz (Mar 9, 2011)

Oh well. So much for the glorious revolution.


----------



## Mael (Mar 9, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> Oh well. So much for the glorious revolution.



West needs to get involved...nao.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Mar 9, 2011)

Mael said:


> West needs to get involved...nao.



Not sure if that would be a good idea. How would they go about doing something like that.


----------



## Wolfarus (Mar 9, 2011)

Mael said:


> West needs to get involved...nao.



Prob not a good idea in the long-run.

While it would mean the success of the lib. situation, it would prob backfire on us. If other countries in the reigon (or even around the world) see the west / US helping overthrow un-democratic governments, they would start their own revolutions, w/ the expectation of receiving western backup.

If we responded, we'd further deplete already razor-thin resources, and stoke even more anti-us sentiment around the world. If we ignored everybody after libya, we'd STILL stoke anti-us sentiment ("they helped the libyans, but not us?!). Plus there's china to contend with. The more we help out revolutions, the more defenstive they'll become, and that brings about its own set of issues.


----------



## Mael (Mar 9, 2011)

Well let's think of it like this.

Gaddafi is successful and then Venezuela/Iran are vindicated (despite the latter's "protest" of Gaddafi's methods), leaving the West looking all the weaker with just words.


----------



## Wolfarus (Mar 9, 2011)

At this point in time, w/ the us economy weakened and its armed forces frayed and worn out, id rather see us loose some diplomatic face and let the libyan situation play itself out, on its own. We're still the worlds #1 power, and we need to stop letting that fact dictate self-eroding policies and decisions.

Just because the guy holding the gun gets embarassed dosnt mean it'll impact his ability to shoot you if you come after his wallet, ya know?


----------



## xenopyre (Mar 10, 2011)

The no fly zone have to be enforced in the near near futur (like right now!!) or else the revolution would be crashed and then Gadhafi's vendictive repression would break the world records .


----------



## makeoutparadise (Mar 10, 2011)

lol You know things are not going well in Libya when a rebel leader talking to the BBC says "This is terrible! not even the Israelis do this..."
that's like me saying "not even fox news lies this much."


----------



## impersonal (Mar 10, 2011)

France is in favor of an aerial military intervention and recognizes the rebels as the legitimate leaders of Libya. Gaddafi answers _"if you do anything, I'll reveal some secrets about Sarkozy's campaign financing"_.


----------



## Mael (Mar 10, 2011)

impersonal said:


> France is in favor of an aerial military intervention.



I support this measure.


----------



## Dionysus (Mar 10, 2011)

Hm. France recognizes rebels as the legitimate government of Libya; rebels ask for outside assistance; NATO intervenes. (Assuming more get on board of the rebel recognition train.)

The way Western countries have talked out against GQKaddaffi and froze a lot of his assets and sanctioned the country... he's bound to retaliate. He unleashed righteous fury against Switzerland (and called for its to be carved up by Germany, France, and Italy) for daring to apply its laws on his son. He's financed terrorist attacks on the West before, back when he was a pariah. He is, once more, a pariah and there is little chance of going back to quirky-but-adorable despot. You also have all that tasty oil...

Too many reasons to take him out. NATO needs a more acceptable route to helping the rebel forces, ie. "Help! Muammar is killing us!". I'm rather skeptical of the UN being relied upon. China and others would likely veto any action.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 10, 2011)

If NATO ends up doing nothing and the rebellion is crushed, i can imagine Al Qaeda recruiting alot off disgruntled and bitter Libyans.

I wouldnt call Libya a humanitarian disaster quite yet. But it certainly is very close to it and as Rwanda and Sri Lanka has shown, the UN buereaucracy is way to slow, disjointed and red taped to actively deal with such critical  situation through it's "legal channel". In case of extreme mass slaughter or genocide, individual nations and organizations simply have to bypass the UN and act unilaterally, otherwise it will be to late.


----------



## Mael (Mar 10, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> If NATO ends up doing nothing and the rebellion is crushed, i can imagine Al Qaeda recruiting alot off disgruntled and bitter Libyans.
> 
> I wouldnt call Libya a humanitarian disaster quite yet. But it certainly is very close to it and as Rwanda and Sri Lanka has shown, the UN buereaucracy is way to slow, disjointed and red taped to actively deal with such critical  situation through it's "legal channel". In case of extreme mass slaughter or genocide, individual nations and organizations simply have to bypass the UN and act unilaterally, otherwise it will be to late.



Srsly...it could be a huge PR boost for NATO to intervene.  AQ could try to say it's an attempt to Westernize Libya into godlessness, but the rebels on the ground could say otherwise.

Everyone is saying that forces are stretched too thin.  BS.  We've naval and air forces to compensate.  A little support goes a long way.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 10, 2011)

my post have been disappearing i think.

anyway, i also said let the rebels fight their own ground war, but they better win.  we should just circle the country shooting down libyan jets.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 10, 2011)

Isn't the _USS Enterprise_ already heading to Libya? The presence of a US Nuclear Carrier, even if it doesn't attack at all, aiding the Libyan Rebels would start to scare the Gaffadi forces.


----------



## Patchouli (Mar 10, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Isn't the _USS Enterprise_ already heading to Libya? The presence of a US Nuclear Carrier, even if it doesn't attack at all, aiding the Libyan Rebels would start to scare the Gaffadi forces.



I would be scared too if a starship flew into my airspace.

That thing is equipped with plasma weapons.


----------



## soulnova (Mar 10, 2011)

Naval and air support would be best, I guess. Bring the jets down. Also give food and aid to the groups in the coast. That would keep most of the doom-sayers in line. Do not send ground troops or shit will go down. 



> Isn't the USS Enterprise already heading to Libya? The presence of a US Nuclear Carrier, even if it doesn't attack at all, aiding the Libyan Rebels would start to scare the Gaffadi forces.



Tell them they have the rail gun from Transformers 2... on a spaceship.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 10, 2011)

impersonal said:


> France is in favor of an aerial military intervention and recognizes the rebels as the legitimate leaders of Libya. Gaddafi answers _"if you do anything, I'll reveal some secrets about Sarkozy's campaign financing"_.



Well them do it Gaddafi, do it because if you don't, Wikileaks will. This is typically the kind of relationship Gaddafi have with the European. "If you don't support me then, i'll ......"

I remember before the arab revolutions, He demands money to european If you don't pay me, i let immigrant from the whole African continent enter illegally in your countries.
It's a good opportunity to reove this troll, he was a pain for Europeans.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 10, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Well them do it Gaddafi, do it because if you don't, Wikileaks will. This is typically the kind of relationship Gaddafi have with the European. "If you don't support me then, i'll ......"
> 
> I remember before the arab revolutions, He demands money to european If you don't pay me, i let immigrant from the whole African continent enter illegally in your countries.
> It's a good opportunity to reove this troll, he was a pain for Europeans.



i bet he does have the juice on lots of nations who have cozied to him for his oil. i hope he does drop that bombshell, whether he's taken out or not.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 10, 2011)

Ok, I haven't been keeping up with the situation in Libya, so bear with me. I'm hear Rebel forces are gaining parts of the East, and that Quaddafi supposedly asked to leave the country without facing penalties, which someone in my class said was made up. 

I've heard the U.S and most of the West have called for a no-fly zone. What's the deal with that? Why hasn't it been called in yet?


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 10, 2011)

Latest Economist article on the war. Qaddafi seems to be regaining his foothold. 





> The colonel fights back
> Colonel Muammar Qaddafi is trying to tighten his grip on the west, while the rebels? inexperience leaves them vulnerable in the east
> 
> Mar 10th 2011 | RAS LANUF | from the print edition
> ...


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 10, 2011)

Second article on topic. 





> Who's in charge?
> The opposition must get a grip, fast
> 
> Mar 10th 2011 | BENGHAZI | from the print edition
> ...


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 10, 2011)

impersonal said:


> France is in favor of an aerial military intervention and recognizes the rebels as the legitimate leaders of Libya. Gaddafi answers _"if you do anything, I'll reveal some secrets about Sarkozy's campaign financing"_.



It's a pretty stupid measure the way they're going about it though, they only plan to hit 3 major facilities (not loyalist forces) and they've already listed what buildings they are, so the Libyans have already evacuated it.

Anyway hcheng's article basically sums up that the rebels will lose without outside intervention by this point. Does the international community want Gaddaffi to stay in power or not? Do they want the Eastern territories to suffer from Gaddaffi's vicious reprisals that will follow any victory? Its all come down to that question.

Something to keep in mind regarding the rebels chances, Gaddaffi is only committing a very small portion of his forces right now. 10 tanks wiped the floor with the rebels last week, he has at least 500 under his control that he has yet to commit for fear that doing so suddenly would result in international intervention.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 10, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> It's a pretty stupid measure the way they're going about it though, they only plan to hit 3 major facilities (not loyalist forces) and they've already listed what buildings they are, so the Libyans have already evacuated it.
> 
> Anyway hcheng's article basically sums up that the rebels will lose without outside intervention by this point. Does the international community want Gaddaffi to stay in power or not? Do they want the Eastern territories to suffer from Gaddaffi's vicious reprisals that will follow any victory? Its all come down to that question.
> 
> Something to keep in mind regarding the rebels chances, Gaddaffi is only committing a very small portion of his forces right now. 10 tanks wiped the floor with the rebels last week, he has at least 500 under his control that he has yet to commit for fear that doing so suddenly would result in international intervention.



as stupid as it may seem, i think it's very smart to step into the intervention waters tepidly.  transparency is a good thing bc libyans might not trust full blown intervention.  i'm just saying..

anyway, 10 tanks is already too much.


----------



## Madchester (Mar 10, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> transparency is a good thing bc libyans might not trust full blown intervention.



Of course they won't, they detained about a dozen SAS agents who had offered assistance let alone a full blown military campaign.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 10, 2011)

Madchester said:


> Of course they won't, they detained about a dozen SAS agents who had offered assistance let alone a full blown military campaign.



yeah, so it's best to start small and make your intentions clear, and they are asking for our help.


----------



## Altron (Mar 12, 2011)

Even the Arab League is in favor of the no-fly Zone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12723554


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 15, 2011)

no post for 3 days? sad..

anyway, pussy germans don't want a no fly zone, they are just as bad as russians!


----------



## Zabuzalives (Mar 15, 2011)

Hats off to Sarkozy who Atleast is taking action. Especially as he has responsibility for past arms deals. Utter shame on the eu, germany, and russia


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 15, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUobYABl9jc&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

Congratulation for the international community. Now i fear for the rebels. Gadaffi receive the agreement from the international cmmunity to "clean up" his country. The "new" Libya will be a difficult neighbor for the EU, But the Scandinavians and the Germans, don't care, they are not in the Mediterranean sea. I wonder who would be Gaddafi allies.


----------



## Adagio (Mar 15, 2011)

Italy for sure, the way they've gone about this whole issue makes me sick..


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 15, 2011)

Gaddafi will support terrorism on our countries. We can't back in anymore after this (we shouldn't even start to back him). We show hostilities to his governance in Libya. He is our enemy. He can't be accepted by us anymore.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 15, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUobYABl9jc&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Congratulation for the international community. Now i fear for the rebels. Gadaffi receive the agreement from the international cmmunity to "clean up" his country. The "new" Libya will be a difficult neighbor for the EU, But the Scandinavians and the Germans, don't care, they are not in the Mediterranean sea. I wonder who would be Gaddafi allies.



Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, Syria, Turkey, and quietly Italy/China. The countries that went out of their way to defend him this time around. 

The situation has deteriorated for the rebels so much in any regard that a no fly zone won't cut it anymore, it could have 2 weeks ago or maybe even 1 week ago. Now it would take a large-scale aerial campaign on the tactical level to turn the tide, and that's obviously not coming. International inaction doomed this revolution, now the best we can hope for is that the International community helps the rebels escape into Egypt so they can avoid reprisals.


----------



## Mael (Mar 15, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, Syria, Turkey, and quietly Italy/China. The countries that went out of their way to defend him this time around.
> 
> The situation has deteriorated for the rebels so much in any regard that a no fly zone won't cut it anymore, it could have 2 weeks ago or maybe even 1 week ago. Now it would take a large-scale aerial campaign on the tactical level to turn the tide, and that's obviously not coming. International inaction doomed this revolution, now the best we can hope for is that the International community helps the rebels escape into Egypt so they can avoid reprisals.



While I would have liked some US action, I could also understand the predicament this would put the US in.  Sure it could've achieved some PR points, but the Muslim world would still likely hate us for Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Venezuela wouldn't quit.  Russia and China would b'awwww as always, and the Arab nations who wanted this would still never get off their asses to do anything about it.  That last part is really it.  The Arab League doesn't do much, instead relying on the West to help them with their issues only for half of them to shift the blame of internal issues to the West or Israel.

Scylla and Charybdis.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 15, 2011)

Mael said:


> While I would have liked some US action, I could also understand the predicament this would put the US in.  Sure it could've achieved some PR points, but the Muslim world would still likely hate us for Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Venezuela wouldn't quit.  Russia and China would b'awwww as always, and the Arab nations who wanted this would still never get off their asses to do anything about it.  That last part is really it.  The Arab League doesn't do much, instead relying on the West to help them with their issues only for half of them to shift the blame of internal issues to the West or Israel.
> 
> Scylla and Charybdis.




Scylla and Charybdis and germany


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 15, 2011)

Some breaking news, Rebels have used a captured fighter jet to launch a kamikaze attack on the loyalist base of Baab Al Aziziyah:



Also, there are reports that rebel aircraft destroyed 2 Loyalist missile boats in additional kamikaze missions near Tripoli.


----------



## Mael (Mar 15, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Some breaking news, Rebels have used a captured fighter jet to launch a kamikaze attack on the loyalist base of Baab Al Aziziyah:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there are reports that rebel aircraft destroyed 2 Loyalist missile boats in additional kamikaze missions near Tripoli.



Invoking the spirit of 1944...I am surprised.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 15, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Some breaking news, Rebels have used a captured fighter jet to launch a kamikaze attack on the loyalist base of Baab Al Aziziyah:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there are reports that rebel aircraft destroyed 2 Loyalist missile boats in additional kamikaze missions near Tripoli.



gosh, i like the idea of hijacking libyan aircraft, or using it to drop shit, but not for kamikaze attacks.  unless they can get gadafi.

either, way, i hope this shows they are still spirited and willing to fight, so that we can figure out a way to offer assistance.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 15, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> gosh, i like the idea of hijacking libyan aircraft, or using it to drop shit, but not for kamikaze attacks.  unless they can get gadafi.



They probably lack any weapons or training to do anything other then take off/fly around a bit, leaving this as their only option.

Keep in mind that the Libyan air force is primitive, their best air-to-ground missile is the AS-10 and that doesn't pack much of a punch. Even if they had the bombs and crews capable of installing/using them, for an accurate attack run with dumb bombs they would have to fly in very low and slow, exposing themselves massively to loyalist AAA. They'd never get through imo.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 15, 2011)

Do you know if arms are being smuggled in to support the rebels Mega?


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 15, 2011)

Looks like the end game is approaching:

_10:38pm: Tony Birtley, Al Jazeera's correspondent, reporting from Benghazi, says:


"There is a gun battle going on in Benghazi. Rebels are flushing out pro-Gadaffi supporters."_


Lol, and the UN got so much praise for it's "decisive action" on this crisis . Prepare for the fact that alot of butthurt Libyan's will join AQ now.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 15, 2011)

^ i don't think so, the people decided to start this fight, and they won't just stop. in terms of fighting i mean, i don't know if they'll join AQ to do it, AQ is a US enemy though, smart move US.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 16, 2011)

Just see we don't have the support of the international community when shit become difficult at our door, even from our EU allies. Next time, we'll have to do more unilateralism.
Now Gaddafi almost threat us. Congratulation for our allies.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Mar 16, 2011)

The UN showed its utter uselessness once again. And with the US understandibly reluctant  for another Middle east war, without them the rest showed to be too pussy, too divided, or simply not caring. Wont take long before new oil and weapon deals with gaddafi


----------



## G (Mar 16, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Be proud, Europe


. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 16, 2011)

Breaking News. Alain Juppé (french foreign minister) said arabs countries are ok to be involve in a military action, it's not too late....


----------



## zuul (Mar 16, 2011)

Eurofags being eurofags.

Why am I not surprized.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 16, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Breaking News. Alain Jupp? (french foreign minister) said arabs countries are ok to be involve in a military action, it's not too late....



It's pretty much too late, even close air support won't save them now.


----------



## Mael (Mar 16, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> It's pretty much too late, even close air support won't save them now.



Sure?

I figured a continuous CAS campaign against Gaddafi forces would at least halt the counter-offensive in its tracks.

Again I'm torn though.  Gaddafi is a prick and he'll only be vindicated through all this inaction.  The inaction again proves that without the US, half of Europe is too scared to act.  It also creates a horribly negative PR campaign for the West and creates a lot of pissed off former-rebels who may just plot against countries who didn't want ot get involved, despite the claims Gaddafi will ally with AQ if the West DID interfere.  This also proves that the Arab League is fucking worthless when it comes to taking their own action unless the name of the country is Bahrain.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 16, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> ^ i don't think so, the people decided to start this fight, and they won't just stop. in terms of fighting i mean, i don't know if they'll join AQ to do it, AQ is a US enemy though, smart move US.





> "This is terrible. This is bad," he said, looking around nervously in  an outdoor cafe overlooking Algeria square, the site of recent clashes  between opponents and supporters of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
> 
> "Gaddafi is old. Young people use the Internet. They want change," he  said, speaking anonymously for fear of being identified by the  authorities.
> "I want to make a future for myself. But with Gaddafi, there is no  future ... Here, we are angry. But we can't show it because Gaddafi is  here in the city."
> ...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110316/wl_nm/us_libya_youth

Sorry to break the news to you, but optimism isn't a replacement for artillery and air support.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 16, 2011)

Who in Europe was against a no fly zone ? I know Germany and Russia was against this plan but what was the opinion of Italy, Spain and the others ????


----------



## Mael (Mar 16, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Who in Europe was against a no fly zone ? I know Germany and Russia was against this plan but what was the opinion of Italy, Spain and the others ????





> Italy, a potential base for such a no-fly zone proposed by Britain and France, ruled out military intervention in the oil-exporting north African country.
> 
> "We cannot have war, the international community should not, does not want and cannot do it," Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said in Rome.





> In an interview with the Italian daily Il Giornale published on Tuesday, Gaddafi said that if western forces attacked Libya, he would ally with al Qaeda "and declare holy war."



Italian media freaked out?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 16, 2011)

Ok, so now we are in peace with Libya right ? Lol, Libya will become a terrorist state just close to our borders. Congratulation.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 17, 2011)

Gaddaffi forces moving on Bengazhi:












Pretty much sums up why the Rebels lost. I'm not sure what was up with Gaddaffi's forces initially, must have been some kind of internal disagreement or shock. Once they were actually put in the field in a real counteroffensive they took about a week to crush the rebels.


----------



## Mael (Mar 17, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Gaddaffi forces moving on Bengazhi:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Albeit not likely, US mulls air strikes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110317


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 17, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Gaddaffi forces moving on Bengazhi:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When was the opportunity lost for Libya? Meaning what was the last chance that the rest of the world could have intervened and stoped Libya into falling to Gaddafi?


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 17, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> When was the opportunity lost for Libya? Meaning what was the last chance that the rest of the world could have intervened and stoped Libya into falling to Gaddafi?



Aver the battle of Zawiyah pretty much I think. The rebels went into a full rout after that.

If the world were to do something tomorrow the situation still may be salvageable, striking some government buildings and airfields won't cut it anymore though. Needs to be continous round-the-clock tactical strikes against every piece of heavy tech Gaddaffi has, imo.

In another week Benghazi will be in Gaddaffi's hands though, so they pretty much have until then to act. Moreover they need to act before he actually sends his forces into the city, else the airstrikes won't be able to differentiate and could end up killing civilians.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 17, 2011)

Since Misrata has still not been captured you can wonder if that is an important factor. This last rebel bastion in the west ties up pro-Gaddafi forces that could have been sent towards Benghazi.

Questions remains if there is enough forces and firepower to take Benghazi, a city of 800 000+ inhabitants. There is also a relatively high concentration of defected army units nearby rather than the usual ragtag amateur AK47 touting militias they've encountered so far.


----------



## Darth Xanatos (Mar 17, 2011)

> Who in Europe was against a no fly zone ? I know Germany and Russia was against this plan but what was the opinion of Italy, Spain and the others ????



I still don`t understand why we don`t support lybian rebels. We should go out of Afghanistan where we are not appreciated by the people and help lybians who are almost begging for our help!


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 17, 2011)

Lichtkrieger said:


> I still don`t understand why we don`t support lybian rebels. We should go out of Afghanistan where we are not appreciated by the people and help lybians who are almost begging for our help!



Because it's pretty much guaranteed that the moment we beat Gadhafi the Libyans will start hating us as well. Remember, this is the Middle East we're talking about.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 17, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> Because it's pretty much guaranteed that the moment we beat Gadhafi the Libyans will start hating us as well. Remember, this is the Middle East we're talking about.



yeah, but there's somethings you can deal with. remember libyans are asking for help, afghanis never asked us for help.  american imperialism, not charity , entangled US in afghanistan..


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 17, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> Because it's pretty much guaranteed that the moment we beat Gadhafi the Libyans will start hating us as well. *Remember, this is the Middle East we're talking about.*



You fail geography forever.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 17, 2011)

Hm, 9/11 entangled US in afghanistan.


----------



## BraggZero (Mar 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Darklyre said:
> 
> 
> > Because it's pretty much guaranteed that the moment we beat Gadhafi the Libyans will start hating us as well. Remember, this is the Middle East we're talking about.
> ...





> "The first official use of the term "Middle East" by the United States government was in the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine, which pertained to the Suez Crisis. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles defined the Middle East as "the area lying between *and including Libya* on the west and Pakistan on the east, Syria and Iraq on the North and the Arabian peninsula to the south, plus the Sudan and Ethiopia."


Libya was originally considered a Middle Eastern country (though that has later been revised), and is still considered one of the countries in the , so it's not as ridiculous as you seem to think it is.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 17, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Hm, 9/11 entangled US in afghanistan.



right, but our original mission in afghanistan ended long ago (the nation is to some degree re-built without improvements and has a functioning govt-an improvement!-) yet we are still there killing 9 year olds holding sticks and wasting taxpayer money.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> You fail geography forever.



Speaking culturally, Libya is far closer to Arab countries than to Africa, much the way Turkey is closer to the Middle East than to Europe.

Also, because Wiki lists Libya as part of the Greater Middle East.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> You fail geography forever.



Meh, at least in terms of we in the region, we tend to refer as the "Middle East" as Morocco to Iran.


----------



## Alien (Mar 17, 2011)

UN council just voted

no-fly zone get


----------



## Darth Xanatos (Mar 17, 2011)

Finally! Thumbs up! France already mobilizing!


----------



## Dionysus (Mar 17, 2011)

Gaddafi is just the right amount of nuts to try an underhanded retaliation against Europe at al. I suspect international aim will attempt to remove him too.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 17, 2011)

Gaddaffi is already moving on Benghazi right now, the rebels probably only have a day or so left. Hopefully NATO has already planned this in advance.

Also if this is just a no fly zone with some attacks on government buildings then it's too little too late, they're going to need to provide an extremely high level of air support. Simply stopping his air force won't cut it anymore as his ground forces are outfighting the rebels at every turn. They can still turn this around if they immediately start pounding Gaddaffi's forces around Benghazi, then move on from there.

Moreover the situation for the rebels is so bad this needs to be U.S.-led by this point, only they can bring down so much air support in such a quick period. The French also are going to be very important as they have the most powerful aerial assets closest by, hopefully for the sake of effectiveness this ends up being a Franco-American operation.


----------



## Pseudo (Mar 17, 2011)

Poor Libyan people. They're just pawns in all of this. Even If America manages to take over what does that do? It's not like they really care for the people "Out of the frying pan, into the fire" I say.


----------



## kayanathera (Mar 17, 2011)

Only someone very naive can imagine that this will be simply a no-fly sanction;basically Gaddafi got impeached.If the rebels hold a little longer a humanitarian situation will provide the perfect excuse to intervine directly that is if military comanders dont ditch the Gaddafi clan outright.Military confruntation with NATO will be resolved in maximum 6 hours since lots of NATO bases are within 1 hour flight.proof





> UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council on Thursday approved a no-fly zone over Libya and *authorized "all necessary measures" to protect civilians* from attacks by Moammar Gadhafi's forces.


----------



## hyakku (Mar 17, 2011)

I'm all for this no fly zone, as long as it doesn't take many US resources. Unfortunately, I don't see any way this will succeed without US resources, and to be honest intervention in. Libya seems BEYOND hypocritical. Nothing in darfur, Rwanda, Somalia in general, etc. but Libya has it's own revolution (I mean it's bad, but not even near the genocidal claims many are making, I've even already seen comparisons to the fucking holocaust already) and suddenly the world should stop what were doing and help them?

It's doubly ironic that the euros are pulling the same move we did seven - eight years ago but trying to hide it under the auspices of humanitarian intervention when countries like Yemen, Rwanda, zimbabe, the Congo, etc. All exist in their present state. No matter, going forward in the future they will have far less leeway to bemoan our self interest fueled actions. 

Can't wait to get more of a euro perspective in Geneva this summer, maybe it'll make me more tolerant of their hypocrisy somehow.

Edit: obviously I'm referring to European political bodies, not euros in general.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 17, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Gaddaffi is already moving on Benghazi right now, the rebels probably only have a day or so left. Hopefully NATO has already planned this in advance.
> 
> Also if this is just a no fly zone with some attacks on government buildings then it's too little too late, they're going to need to provide an extremely high level of air support. Simply stopping his air force won't cut it anymore as his ground forces are outfighting the rebels at every turn. They can still turn this around if they immediately start pounding Gaddaffi's forces around Benghazi, then move on from there.
> 
> Moreover the situation for the rebels is so bad this needs to be U.S.-led by this point, only they can bring down so much air support in such a quick period. The French also are going to be very important as they have the most powerful aerial assets closest by, hopefully for the sake of effectiveness this ends up being a Franco-American operation.



won't gadafi forces turn tail cause they are full of mercs?   they aren't getting paid that much.



hyakku said:


> I'm all for this no fly zone, as long as it doesn't take many US resources. Unfortunately, I don't see any way this will succeed without US resources, and to be honest intervention in. Libya seems BEYOND hypocritical. Nothing in darfur, Rwanda, Somalia in general, etc. but Libya has it's own revolution (I mean it's bad, but not even near the genocidal claims many are making, I've even already seen comparisons to the fucking holocaust already) and suddenly the world should stop what were doing and help them?
> 
> It's doubly ironic that the euros are pulling the same move we did seven - eight years ago but trying to hide it under the auspices of humanitarian intervention when countries like Yemen, Rwanda, zimbabe, the Congo, etc. All exist in their present state. No matter, going forward in the future they will have far less leeway to bemoan our self interest fueled actions.
> 
> Can't wait to get more of a euro perspective in Geneva this summer, maybe it'll make me more tolerant of their hypocrisy somehow.



being hypocritical doesn't mean you can never not be hypocritical.   I mean, if gaddafi had just used ground forces he could have legitimately called it a civil war (but he would have lost).  He resorts to the use of the air force against civilians, it's a little too much.  

I agree there's probably many situation that could have benefited from intervention.  not iraq though.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 17, 2011)

"all necessary measures".

Sounds like a blank Cheque to me but will the US, UK and French do more than to enforce a no fly zone.  Although it seems also in the wording a call for immediate ceasefire which could include ground forces of Gaddafi's being attacked.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 17, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> won't gadafi forces turn tail cause they are full of mercs?   they aren't getting paid that much.



The mercenaries were an interim solution what Gaddaffi worked out whatever issues were in his best forces, I think. If you go over the images and accounts now, they're appearing less and less. I imagine the mercs are still there, but they're no longer vital or leading things. The tip of his spear right now are the Khamis and Al Hamza brigades, which consist only of his tribesmen and have proven themselves loyal and far better fighters then the rebels.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 17, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> The mercenaries were an interim solution what Gaddaffi worked out whatever issues were in his best forces, I think. If you go over the images and accounts now, they're appearing less and less. I imagine the mercs are still there, but they're no longer vital or leading things. The tip of his spear right now are the Khamis and Al Hamza brigades, which consist only of his tribesmen and have proven themselves loyal and far better fighters then the rebels.



hopefully they just back down and sign a cease fire or deal with the force of the whole of the UN.  or rather, join the libyan coalition govt.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 17, 2011)

Megaharisson, can the situation now be salvaged? It seems that the major players France, UK and US got the OK for doing pretty much everytihng short of invasion to end Gaddafi.


----------



## Alien (Mar 17, 2011)

*Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels 
*


----------



## iander (Mar 17, 2011)

Gaddafi is done now.  There are reports that some of his high ranking officers are considering fleeing the country because of the UN resolution.  If they are able to make sure the rebel base in Benghazi is protected, its only a matter of time.  Though it will most likely be a protracted and deadly civil war for sure.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 17, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> Megaharisson, can the situation now be salvaged? It seems that the major players France, UK and US got the OK for doing pretty much everytihng short of invasion to end Gaddafi.



As I said, if they provide the proper level of support within the next 2-3 or so days it can. Basically, round-the-clock close air support in cooperation with rebel forces on the ground while wiping out all of Gaddaffi's heavy equipment.

Anyway since the West is up against Gaddaffi's air defenses, thought I'd show what info I got on them for anyone whose interested:

Note that the info is pre-revolt.

*Fighters: ~145*
-: ~50 (1 known to have been used by the rebels for a kamikaze mission)
-: ~25 
-: ~12 (2 have defected to Malta)
-: ~5 (1 shot down by rebels)
-: ~40 (1 shot down by rebels)
-: ~13

Also note that Gaddaffi also has at least 2 reserve squadrons (~36) of  at least on paper, but they're pretty much assumed to be non-operable right now.

*Air Defense: ~46 SAM Sites*
- SAM: 11 Batteries
- SAM: 16 Batteries
-: 4 Batteries (NATO really needs to take these out fast)
-: 15 Batteries

He also operates some ~125 , , , and  systems for tactical/army air defense. Plus ~500 14.5mm/23mm/37mm/57mm AAA and , , and  MANPAD's

To summarize: he's pretty fucked now.


----------



## Xion (Mar 17, 2011)

Lichtkrieger said:


> Finally! Thumbs up! France already mobilizing!



Yet Germany abstained.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 17, 2011)

German abstains for every form of military action i think when on the council.  (not sure about east Germany though when it was on, I though I bet it just followed what the soviet union did)


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 17, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> German abstains for every form of military action i think when on the council.  (not sure about east Germany though when it was on, I though I bet it just followed what the soviet union did)



Germany's just waiting for France to get complacent or be distracted, then BOOM RIGHT IN THE KIDNEYS


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 17, 2011)

UN actually not being completely useless and actually doing shit?

Ok, this is got to be a dream...


----------



## birabudo (Mar 18, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> As I said, if they provide the proper level of support within the next 2-3 or so days it can. Basically, round-the-clock close air support in cooperation with rebel forces on the ground while wiping out all of Gaddaffi's heavy equipment.
> 
> Anyway since the West is up against Gaddaffi's air defenses, thought I'd show what info I got on them for anyone whose interested:
> 
> ...



Glad the UN approved the no-fly zone even though its a little late
the fighters should be easy to take out it depends if the mig-23's are fitted with r-27s and r-77s  even then should be simple. 
The air defenses should be cake using the most modern sead packages available. However sead missions are always very risky even against outdated aerial defenses


----------



## JH24 (Mar 18, 2011)

That's good news about the no-fly zone/resolution. I have to admit I wasn't expecting it anymore after all these days. I just hope it won't be too late.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 18, 2011)

Someone needs to drop a hammer on Ghadaffi fast.  He could still win this, no-fly zone or not.

For Ghadaffi to hold on to legitimacy, he'll has to eliminate the rebels in such a fashion that there is no chance of an uprising.  No one can rebel if they're all dead.  Then if there are no living rebels to protect with peacekeepers, there is no humanitarian goal to accomplish--and thus toppling Ghadaffi would be an exercise in pointlessness.


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 18, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Someone needs to drop a hammer on Ghadaffi fast.  He could still win this, no-fly zone or not.
> 
> For Ghadaffi to hold on to legitimacy, he'll has to eliminate the rebels in such a fashion that there is no chance of an uprising.  No one can rebel if they're all dead.  Then if there are no living rebels to protect with peacekeepers, there is no humanitarian goal to accomplish--and thus toppling Ghadaffi would be an exercise in pointlessness.



Basically. The rebels need alot of help since they are really amateurish in this war. Seriously, these guys don't even know how to dig trenches in order to hold ground.



> Where is America?
> 
> On Saturday, in Brega, I met Osama BenSadik, a forty-seven-year-old Libyan-American who had returned to his homeland from Martinsville, Virginia, to help the revolution. He was offering his services in the hospital. (He is a volunteer firefighter in Henry County.) He told me, full of passion and pride and fear, that his twenty-one-year-old son, Muhanad, a second year medical student and a Boy Scout, who had been in school here in Libya, had gone to fight at the front line. ?Tell America to come and help, because if we don?t, if we let the Libyan revolution fail, then we?you and I and all of us?would see things we could never imagine,? he said. It wasn?t a full-formed thought, but I understand BenSadik to be referring to the roiling and sometimes contradictory emotions among the young fighters at the front, who were watching their friends be slaughtered, and trying to come to terms with what it all meant. BenSadik told me that he feared for his son?s safety because he was brave, and had told him that he felt the revolution was a cause worth dying for.
> 
> ...



 I don't see how anything less than round the clock air strikes on Gaddafi's air force and heavy artillery is going to turn the tide at this point. A simple no fly zone just isn't going to be enough.


----------



## Xion (Mar 18, 2011)

IT'S NOT A SIMPLE NO-FLY ZONE PEOPLE.

*"The resolution gives permission to U.N. members to take "all necessary measures" to protect civilians, including a ban on all flights over Libya."
*
Reading is power! 

*slowly leaves the room*


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 18, 2011)

Xion said:


> IT'S NOT A SIMPLE NO-FLY ZONE PEOPLE.
> 
> *"The resolution gives permission to U.N. members to take "all necessary measures" to protect civilians, including a ban on all flights over Libya."
> *
> ...



Let's actually see the UN member air force striking down Gaddafi's forces before we jump to conclusions. Talk is cheap, and there is still a possibility that the UN members won't mobilize their armed forces in time to stop Gaddafi's advance.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 18, 2011)

the tactics part is interesting, from what i've been reading seems no one in libya knows how to fight.  that could be fixed with some basic training ehh?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 18, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> the tactics part is interesting, from what i've been reading seems no one in libya knows how to fight.  that could be fixed with some basic training ehh?



That's true, but even basic training takes a while to teach


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 18, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> the tactics part is interesting, from what i've been reading seems no one in libya knows how to fight.  that could be fixed with some basic training ehh?



Basic training usually takes weeks of training from experienced professionals. That time is a luxury that can only be brought with Western help - a coordinated attack on Gaddafi's resources and military advisors. At the rate Gaddafi was going with his counter attack, it would be a matter of days before he defeated the rebels without the West stepping in.

This article is a little obsolete given the resolution being just passed. However, it does show some of the problems with a simple no fly zone. It also shows how the rebels are of two minds with Western help. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12708727



> Viewpoint: Libya intervention 'brings huge risks'
> Libyans protest against the Gaddafi government in Benghazi, 10 March
> 
> As debate continues over whether the international community should intervene in Libya, in particular by imposing a no-fly zone, Washington commentator Steve Clemons argues that such a move could bring enormous political risks for little return.
> ...



You see the problem here? The rebels want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a no fly zone but don't want the necessary Western military installations needed to enforce it. They want to win their own revolution but are so fucking incompetent that if the West doesn't hold their hands then Gaddafi will win and they'll be killed to the last man. The problem is that once the West steps in it'll become another "imperialist" grab. Its very likely the Libyans will resent our help and be hostile to us after its all over - in short the West teaching them to fight Gaddafi only to have them fight against us next.


----------



## Xion (Mar 18, 2011)

hcheng02 said:


> Let's actually see the UN member air force striking down Gaddafi's forces before we jump to conclusions. Talk is cheap, and there is still a possibility that the UN members won't mobilize their armed forces in time to stop Gaddafi's advance.



France and England have been itching to bomb shit, I'm sure preparations are well underway and we might have airstrikes today.


----------



## Alien (Mar 18, 2011)

_French air strikes on #Libya to begin imminently, according to government spokesman_


----------



## Xion (Mar 18, 2011)

I also think the planning and mapping of points to bomb went on well before this resolution vote, so it's all a matter of mobilization now and carrying out the attacks along with some cross-country coordination.

It's a beautiful thing to see the sky light up as SAM locations are blown up as France, U.K., Canada, Norway, and the U.S. all join hands and bomb locations together. Brings a tear to my eye. 

Guess Germany was the France this time around.


----------



## Darth Xanatos (Mar 18, 2011)

> Yet Germany abstained.



Yeah....but I assure you the german people wouldn`t have abstainend this time. Surveys show that a vast majority would like to see Gaddhafi`s forces bombarded.
The problem is our damn coward government you know...


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 18, 2011)




----------



## zuul (Mar 18, 2011)

Well Berly is Khaddaffi's good friend, they have been orgying with minor prostitutes together, so...


----------



## Xyloxi (Mar 18, 2011)

Mael said:


> Of course watch some of the UN cave into this nonsense, like Italy.



What do you expect from a country where their military history consists of "Oh shit, we're about to get curbstomped" and switching sides.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 18, 2011)

This isn't over, Gaddaffi won't allow himself to be removed from power. And until that happens this situation won't resolve himself.

Bit of a smart move on Gaddaffi's part though, had he continued militarily he would have inevitably been crushed. This at least buys him time.



			
				Stepdogg said:
			
		

> Glad the UN approved the no-fly zone even though its a little late
> the fighters should be easy to take out it depends if the mig-23's are fitted with r-27s and r-77s even then should be simple.
> The air defenses should be cake using the most modern sead packages available. However sead missions are always very risky even against outdated aerial defenses



Gaddaffi's MiG-23's are mostly the MiG-23MS model, their best AAM is the R-60. Theoretically the 23' can be upgraded to carry stuff like the R-77 and R-27, but in practice none of its current users actually have this in package.


----------



## Mael (Mar 18, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> This isn't over, Gaddaffi won't allow himself to be removed from power. And until that happens this situation won't resolve himself.
> 
> Bit of a smart move on Gaddaffi's part though, had he continued militarily he would have inevitably been crushed. This at least buys him time.



If the West was smart...they'd call bullshit.

I don't care about the Arab League getting proactive now.  I just don't want backpedaling.


----------



## Dionysus (Mar 18, 2011)

Unless Gaddafi's command structure has a long lag time for orders, this is a BS ceasefire.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 18, 2011)

Damnit I wanted to see Gaddafi's force obliterated. I do wonder how they'll solve this issue though, Gaddafi is not going to leave power, his moronic family seem to believe that they're somehow entitled to power. And well the protesters won't accept anything less than him leaving so don't see how this mess will be resolved. Will we see a divide like the one taking place in Sudan?

And yeah UN you ignore the fact that SA is doing the same in Bahrain.


----------



## Mongolia (Mar 18, 2011)

Aristocration first, then spread some hate because there are different religions then U.N troups will invade this country to protect their people and kill a couple tons of civillians. Then we will bring democracy to this country. Sounds good...

Please bring Gaddafi these kids don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Gaddafi may be a political asshole but at least he made sure that Libya hasn't been infiltrated for around 20 years.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 18, 2011)

> Aristocration first, then spread some hate because there are different religions then U.N troups will invade this country to protect their people and kill a couple tons of civillians. Then we will bring democracy to this country. Sounds good...



Better UN than Gaddafi himself wiping out opposition


----------



## Dionysus (Mar 18, 2011)

Canada is sending jets. All I can see is the Canadian government doing this for propaganda use in their attempted F-35 purchase. Damn, Canadian politics has me at an all time cynical high.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 18, 2011)

YataNoKagami said:


> Aristocration first, then spread some hate because there are different religions then U.N troups will invade this country to protect their people and kill a couple tons of civillians. Then we will bring democracy to this country. Sounds good...
> 
> Please bring Gaddafi these kids don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Gaddafi may be a political asshole but at least he made sure that Libya hasn't been infiltrated for around 20 years.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Mar 18, 2011)

Very smart move of gaddafi, he retook most of oil fields and if they draw maps now hes pretty good off. Also the rebels wont accept it and as Soon as they incite violence he has an excuse to stomp them again. I thought he was another megalomaniac dictator overplaying his hands but with this countries Would need to act without UN sanction...

He should play by UN rules and bide his time till the West Loses Attention


----------



## Mael (Mar 18, 2011)

YataNoKagami said:


> Aristocration first, then spread some hate because there are different religions then U.N troups will invade this country to protect their people and kill a couple tons of civillians. Then we will bring democracy to this country. Sounds good...
> 
> Please bring Gaddafi these kids don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Gaddafi may be a political asshole but at least he made sure that Libya hasn't been infiltrated for around 20 years.



Didn't know it was Talk Like Head is Up Ass Day today .


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 18, 2011)

Zabuzalives said:


> Very smart move of gaddafi, he retook most of oil fields and if they draw maps now hes pretty good off. Also the rebels wont accept it and as Soon as they incite violence he has an excuse to stomp them again. I thought he was another megalomaniac dictator overplaying his hands but with this countries Would need to act without UN sanction...
> 
> He should play by UN rules and bide his time till the West Loses Attention



The UN security council allowed them to use airstrikes against him too. I am not sure what you mean they would have to act without UN sanctions.


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Mar 18, 2011)

Dionysus said:


> Canada is sending jets. All I can see is the Canadian government doing this for propaganda use in their attempted F-35 purchase. Damn, Canadian politics has me at an all time cynical high.



it good to see that our neighbors are doing something, is saddening for me to say that we should do as much. Gaddafi is laying low, hopefully our goverments don't buy it


----------



## Punpun (Mar 18, 2011)

I fail to see how a cease fire magically null th efact he commited a genocide/Crime against humanity in the past week and that he ain't even considered as legitimate by some countroes..


----------



## Mael (Mar 18, 2011)

Mandom said:


> I fail to see how a cease fire magically null th efact he commited a genocide/Crime against humanity in the past week and that he ain't even considered as legitimate by some country.



Because it's the UN, nations like Italy or Turkey are going to eat that shit up.

You have testicles, France and Britain.  I suggest using them.

Gaddafi's trying to calm international opinion.  It's a trap.


----------



## Punpun (Mar 18, 2011)

Well a ceasfire should means nothing for France anyways.. They officially made the rebels leader as the legitimate "ruler" of Libya..


----------



## Mael (Mar 18, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Well a ceasfire should means nothing for France anyways.. They officially made the rebels leader as the legitimate "ruler" of Libya..



All I'm saying is that Gaddafi is using a cheap and desparate move just to get eyes off of him.  Once they are, he'll go back to his usual tricks.

Honestly, I had hopes the Arab League would do something but here we are again.  They're too fucking lazy to handle this and too fucking lazy to admit to their own problems (Israel/West scapegoating e.g.).  Now I want to see France and the UK curbstomp someone.  I want to see some fucking action being taken against this third-rate military.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 18, 2011)

Small wonder the chickenshit Ghadaffi called for a cease fire as soon as the UN stepped in with an actual stick.


----------



## Mael (Mar 18, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Small wonder the chickenshit Ghadaffi called for a cease fire as soon as the UN stepped in with an actual stick.



Ceasefire can be fine if he will GTFO.

I'm sure Russia and China who do plenty of business, more than the West, with Gaddafi are all peaches and cream over this.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Mar 18, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> The UN security council allowed them to use airstrikes against him too. I am not sure what you mean they would have to act without UN sanctions.



Do What was necessary to protect the civilians. With cease fire and other gestures gaddafi takes away the justification behind Any military intervention, which Would turn from defensive on behalf rebels, to offensive against gaddafi,     
Who if smart should use supporters and civilians as human shields for his installations. 

Then you got situation where offensive military action Would kill libyan civilians... Under mandate to protect civilians. 

That is not gonna hold. Its Also a diplomatic struggle now, a pr struggle


----------



## soulnova (Mar 18, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Small wonder the chickenshit Ghadaffi called for a cease fire as soon as the UN stepped in with an actual stick.



So much for people who believe UN doesn't have any real power. 

I'm under the impression he will give his troops civilian clothes, make them attack rebels and claim he doesn't have any to do with that. Loyalist working on their own, because, clearly _they all love him._


----------



## Mael (Mar 18, 2011)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-libya-italy-defence-idUSTRE72H4VL20110318

Fucking Italians. 

And these guys descended from Rome?!?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 18, 2011)

what are we waiting for, cruise missile up this trolls ass.  he seems more intent on exploiting the peace keeping system than anything else.



Mael said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-libya-italy-defence-idUSTRE72H4VL20110318
> 
> Fucking Italians.
> 
> And these guys descended from Rome?!?



huh, italy is supporting the no-fly zone coalition.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 18, 2011)

Gaddafi's regime displaying typical bully behaviour. Beating up a weaker kid, but acting like the biggest pussy ever when retribution is near.

Spank the living shit out of him, they were still bombing cities just a few hours ago.



Mael said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-libya-italy-defence-idUSTRE72H4VL20110318
> 
> Fucking Italians.
> 
> And these guys descended from Rome?!?



Why the Italy bashing?

The agreed to cooperate with the resolution, unlike ze Germans.


----------



## Mael (Mar 18, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Why the Italy bashing?
> 
> The agreed to cooperate with the resolution, unlike ze Germans.





FapperWocky said:


> huh, italy is supporting the no-fly zone coalition.



Just a few days ago Italy was ruling against the no-fly zone.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 18, 2011)

Who gives a shit about Italy? This is a country where the man running the place pays underage girls for sex and tries to change the law when he gets caught. He has more in common with Arabs anyway.


----------



## hyakku (Mar 18, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> won't gadafi forces turn tail cause they are full of mercs?   they aren't getting paid that much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Agreed, but the recent streak of west hypocrisy in regards to humanitarian intervention is so glaring at this point, that it's almost pathetic to me how France, the uk, etc. All want to take action now, when there are literally far worse governments in existence as they fuel up their planes to bombard Libya. I have no inclinations towards libyas future, but I really can't see a real justification for the west intervening into another nations domestic disputes based off of human security considering the past decade.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 18, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Who gives a shit about Italy?



They have the 2nd best aerial assets in the region after France.

Anyway, Gaddaffi hasn't halted his attacks on Mistrata last I've heard. At least 25 killed there today. He's just using the ceasefire to create internal dissent against military action in the West. Hopefully the aimed elements in the US and Europe don't become useful idiots for him.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 18, 2011)

Mael said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-libya-italy-defence-idUSTRE72H4VL20110318
> 
> Fucking Italians.
> 
> And these guys descended from Rome?!?



Heh the Rome they descended from was the backstabbing side switching side that died 1000 years before the rest of the empire. What you expect best ones stayed in the east 

Last I heard Tornadoes and Typhoons are heading to Italy,  couple people i know saw a few fly by from airfields near their homes also larger planes are heading south too.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 18, 2011)

soulnova said:


> So much for people who believe UN doesn't have any real power.



It doesn't. The power behind this military action isn't the UN, it's the US, UK, France, and Italy. What, you think the fighter pilots enforcing the no-fly zone are gonna have blue helmets on? The UN didn't decide shit. All that happened was the anti-Gadhafi nations traded horses with the pro-Gadhafi ones and slowly managed to pass something that would've been useful two weeks ago.

The UN and the world community sat around with their dicks in their asses for weeks. It still remains to be seen whether air cover is actually going to help the rebels or just delay the inevitable. I'm not gonna hold my breath for this one.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 18, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> It doesn't. The power behind this military action isn't the UN, it's the US, UK, France, and Italy. What, you think the fighter pilots enforcing the no-fly zone are gonna have blue helmets on? The UN didn't decide shit. All that happened was the anti-Gadhafi nations traded horses with the pro-Gadhafi ones and slowly managed to pass something that would've been useful two weeks ago.
> 
> The UN and the world community sat around with their dicks in their asses for weeks. It still remains to be seen whether air cover is actually going to help the rebels or just delay the inevitable. I'm not gonna hold my breath for this one.



i think this example at the UN shows the legitimacy of the intervention and the near unanimity of the world on this course.  It's a powerful message which will be enforced by the members.

furthermore i think it will work towards freeing libya from gadafi at least.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 18, 2011)

He call for a cease fire but continue to attack the rebels....


----------



## Mael (Mar 18, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> He call for a cease fire but continue to attack the rebels....



Like I said...a deceptive ploy to dumber nations.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 18, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> i think this example at the UN shows the legitimacy of the intervention and the near unanimity of the world on this course.  It's a powerful message which will be enforced by the members.
> 
> furthermore i think it will work towards freeing libya from gadafi at least.



Weeks of mutual ass-sniffing and one-third of the voting nations abstaining counts as near-unanimity now?

And by "enforced," I think you mean "one or two nations will actually bother to send some military units into the region, with the rest cheering on from a safe distance."

I'm not going to put any stock in the idea of the rebels having a chance until I see some around-the-clock airstrikes.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 18, 2011)

Quite frankly, the response time of the UN is too damn slow.  They really need to start laying down the law tonight.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 18, 2011)

considering the politics of the situation, i think the US did things as fast as they could without going unilaterally.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 18, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Quite frankly, the response time of the UN is too damn slow.  They really need to start laying down the law tonight.



Snail pace is synonomous with the UN, unfortunately.

Obama hasnt exactly impressed in this situation either. I get the point that he doesnt want to be unilateral, but it's probably not smart domestic wise to be seen as an dithering wimp who's soft on projecting American power.

Unless Afghanistan&Iraq has made americans more nuanced about that.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 18, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Snail pace is synonomous with the UN, unfortunately.
> 
> Obama hasnt exactly impressed in this situation either. I get the point that he doesnt want to be unilateral, but it's probably not smart domestic wise to be seen as an dithering wimp who's soft on projecting American power.
> 
> Unless Afghanistan&Iraq has made americans more nuanced about that.



i thought the end result was perfect.  obama looks good on this, not saying much and making it happen in the end.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 18, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> i thought the end result was perfect.  obama looks good on this, not saying much and making it happen in the end.



I disagree, he is making me uncertain of how much is going to happen in the end. That is in actions and air raids.  But really this doesn't matter what matters will be the result and then we will see how good or bad Obama looks.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 18, 2011)

FapperWocky said:


> i thought the end result was perfect.  obama looks good on this, not saying much and making it happen in the end.



To me, it seems like he got upstaged by Cameron and Sarkozy. The Security Council gave him the political cover, but what would he have done had China or Russia vetoed it?

You saw the same shit in the Iran demonstrations two years. Obama reactions was a couple of toothless statements and slapping down a few sanctions.


----------



## stream (Mar 19, 2011)

Considering his position as Bush's successor, I could well imagine that he decided to wait for the other countries to move first. I think people both in the US and in the world are very wary of American interventionism.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 19, 2011)

Reports that Gaddafi's forces has started entering Benghazi now


----------



## Xion (Mar 19, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> I disagree, he is making me uncertain of how much is going to happen in the end. That is in actions and air raids.  But really this doesn't matter what matters will be the result and then we will see how good or bad Obama looks.



Yeah there are reports now he doesn't even want to use bombers or fighters and provide only logistical support.

I admit it's good to be cautious following Bush's approach, but this level of pussification is starting to piss me off.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 19, 2011)

Crazy shit going on here. You can hear the firing


Edit: 

Pic of airplane getting shot down over Benghazi.


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 19, 2011)

Was that one of Gaddafi's planes or a rebel one?


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 19, 2011)

One of Gadaffi's. The rebels shot it down.



Le Mâle Dominant said:


> He call for a cease fire but continue to attack the rebels....



Well, it's a bit late to expect sanity from him.


----------



## xenopyre (Mar 19, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7YEsa3N3mw[/YOUTUBE]
The rebels take down a mig 23 in Banghazi today


----------



## Pseudo (Mar 19, 2011)

I'm surprised America is so quick to put sanctions on Libya,Zimbabwe and the other dictators they aren't seeing eye to eye with. But back when that racist bastard Ian Smith had the black people suffering is South Africa they didn't sanction because they though the people would suffer.

I want the Libyan people to have their freedom, but I don't trust America. It's obvious it's the oil they're after but at least try to do something for the folks if you take over.


----------



## Mael (Mar 19, 2011)

Well all that ploy work by Gaddafi to shift anger off didn't seem to work.  I can only hope NATO's planes start to hit back.

Hope...


----------



## impersonal (Mar 19, 2011)

One airplane isn't going to do it, Gaddhafi has a few hundreds. 

It's starting to look like Gaddhafi will succeed in bringing the rebels down... But I wonder whether he can occupy/govern a country that, for the most part will resist him now.

Also, it's becoming unclear whether Libya can even work as a country anymore.


----------



## Sillay (Mar 19, 2011)

ThePsuedo said:


> I'm surprised America is so quick to put sanctions on Libya,Zimbabwe and the other dictators they aren't seeing eye to eye with. But back when that racist bastard Ian Smith had the black people suffering is South Africa they didn't sanction because they though the people would suffer.
> 
> I want the Libyan people to have their freedom, but I don't trust America. It's obvious it's the oil they're after but at least try to do something for the folks if you take over.



You've obviously been under a rock for these past few weeks. Because if you weren't, you'd have noticed our reluctance to "take over" and get involved in any military action in general.

And for you, a map of Libya's oil exports.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 19, 2011)

They would start to attack after the summit in Paris. The first wave would be with UK, France and Canada planes, the second wave would be american.

And i hear on TV that French planes are already in the Libyan airspace.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

Apparently, French fighter jets have entered Libyan airspace and are taking control of the area above Benghazi right now.

It's apparently in  but I can't confirm I dunno French.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 19, 2011)

According to BBC/Reuters Canada needs two days to get its aircraft ready for a military strike, so if there is a strike immediately following the meeting Canada won't be a part of it.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 19, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Apparently, French fighter jets have entered Libyan airspace and are taking control of the area above Benghazi right now.
> 
> It's apparently in  but I can't confirm I dunno French.
> 
> ...



Yes, it's a defense mission. Their mission is to defense Benghazi. Their are allowed to shoot only of they see movements from Gaddafi army.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

This is like some Lord of the Rings shit. French arrived just at the last possible moment before the rebels were doomed. Even a few more hours and it could have been too late.

In any regard this "defense only" won't work, they need to immediately target all of Gaddaffi's heavy weapons to turn this around. Also, somebody has to take out those SA-5 SAM Sites or the French fighters will be at risk.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 19, 2011)

I'm not aware about military strategy like you Mega but i suppose it's a temporary mission to stop Gaddafi's army before the real operations start (soon).


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 19, 2011)

Sarkozy talking right now.


----------



## xenopyre (Mar 19, 2011)

Sarkozy is talking now , so the mission is starting


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

Pic of French Mirage-2000's taking off from Nancy Air Force Base on their way to Libya:


*Spoiler*: __ 









Notice the GBU Laser-Guided bombs under the planes. However they lack air-to-air missiles, meaning if Gaddaffi sends up fighters they will be fucked. Hopefully they have fighters with air-to-air capability operating as escorts. 

These aircraft have some heavy-duty laser guided bombs and laser-designating targeting pods. Thus I assume they're on a strategic strike mission (such as a Libyan airfield, command/control center, etc.) rather then tactical air support outside Benghazi. They seem dangerously under-armed though, not sure what's up with that.

Edit: BBC is saying that there are Rafales operating over Libya, I assume those are the M2000's escorts. If the Libyan air force tries to fuck with those things they'll get the beating of a century.


----------



## Zaru (Mar 19, 2011)

Those bombs are actually filled with kittens


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 19, 2011)

Libyan planes will just get shot down by pro rebels and their aa guns.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Libyan planes will just get shot down by pro rebels and their aa guns.



I'm starting to suspect the French shot the MiG-23 down when they arrived. It just sort of blew up and crashed, with AA you'd get tracers and a MANPAD would probably have some kind of contrail. Moreover there's a lot of confusion with who downed it among the rebels. Lastly, the plane went down around the same time the French arrived. The french air force is top-notch and not stupid enough to let an enemy fighter jet fly around willy nilly over their area of operations.

Overall the French are trying their best to recreate the ending of Saving Private Ryan here.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 19, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> I'm starting to suspect the French shot the MiG-23 down when they arrived.



The footage of the MiG being downed was around way before the Rafales showed up.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

First Tsurugi said:


> The footage of the MiG being downed was around way before the Rafales showed up.



Was it now? I woke up and saw both happen like within 30 minutes of each other and the MiG going boom seemed pretty recent by that point. Oh well then, so much for the Rafale's first aerial kill


----------



## makeoutparadise (Mar 19, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Overall the French are trying their best to recreate the ending of Saving Private Ryan here.



It'll just be like Casablanca except this time the french will win!!
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM-E2H1ChJM[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Mar 19, 2011)

impersonal said:


> One airplane isn't going to do it, Gaddhafi has a few hundreds.
> 
> It's starting to look like Gaddhafi will succeed in bringing the rebels down... But I wonder whether he can occupy/govern a country that, for the most part will resist him now.
> 
> Also, it's becoming unclear whether Libya can even work as a country anymore.


well that's one less for what is worth, even if strategically that one plane is worthless, as a morality boost is pretty big since the rebels were on the brink of being defeated, it gives then hope




Megaharrison said:


> Overall the French are trying their best to recreate the ending of Saving Private Ryan here.


that movie was awesome, god bless the French


----------



## fieryfalcon (Mar 19, 2011)

The Libyan regime is no worse than the Saddam regime, better than the Taliban, and it hasn't attacked us, but it does have oil.  

Where are all the no blood for oil signs and posts?  

I want all you leftists out there to apply the simple "what would I be saying if George Bush did it?" test to yourself and then cry at your own hypocrisy.


----------



## kayanathera (Mar 19, 2011)

First Tsurugi said:


> The footage of the MiG being downed was around way before the Rafales showed up.



most likely some top secret UAV were there for some time,this is the perfect occasion to test some new shit.


----------



## soulnova (Mar 19, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> The Libyan regime is no worse than the Saddam regime, better than the Taliban, and it hasn't attacked us, but it does have oil.
> 
> Where are all the no blood for oil signs and posts?
> 
> I want all you leftists out there to apply the simple "what would I be saying if George Bush did it?" test to yourself and then cry at your own hypocrisy.



Because the ones who started it were their own people, maybe? o_O 

And yes, like someone else posted before, this feels as in LOTR when Aragon arrives to the battle with the army of ghosts to save the city. LOL


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 19, 2011)

Humanitarian missions in Japan, War in Libya, Afganistan, Yemen, ect

the US is pretty stretched isnt it


----------



## fieryfalcon (Mar 19, 2011)

soulnova said:


> Because the ones who started it were their own people, maybe? o_O
> 
> And yes, like someone else posted before, this feels as in LOTR when Aragon arrives to the battle with the army of ghosts to save the city. LOL



Huh?  Who started the war between Lybia, America, France, and England?  We did!  Lybia didn't attack us.  Why are we attacking Lybia and not Sudan?  Why not attack Somalia, where we're actually under attack and our citizens have been killed?  Why not Bahrain?  

What national interest do we have at stake here?  When did Congress declare war?  Does anyone even know if the "rebels" are less repugnant than Col. Crazy?  For all we know we're aiding a future bin Laden right now, for no reason, at massive expense...


----------



## Vom Osten (Mar 19, 2011)

It'll take more than some aircraft to turn things around. Without any NATO troops on the ground the rebellion is utter utterly screwed.


----------



## birabudo (Mar 19, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Was it now? I woke up and saw both happen like within 30 minutes of each other and the MiG going boom seemed pretty recent by that point. Oh well then, so much for the Rafale's first aerial kill



It is weird you do not see any tracers in the video and i do not think it was a man pad probably was AAA. I would also like to see the  Rafale's first aerial kill    

For any one interested an assessment of Libyan  SAM network 


CONCLUSION

At the end of the day, the Libyan strategic SAM network requires a massive infusion of new technology to remain viable in the twenty first century. It was not capable of repelling an attack over twenty years ago, and there is no reason to suspect that it will be capable of such action today. Libya is reportedly negotiating for the purchase of advanced S-300PMU-2 (SA-20B GARGOYLE) SAM systems from Russia, which would go a long way towards modernizing the network and restoring its effectiveness. Colonel al-Gaddafi has made great strides in bringing Libya back into the community of nations, and deserves a large amount of praise for doing so, but that should not lessen the Libyan government's desire or responsibility to provide adequate defense for its citizens.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 19, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> The Libyan regime is no worse than the Saddam regime, better than the Taliban, and it hasn't attacked us, but it does have oil.
> 
> Where are all the no blood for oil signs and posts?
> 
> I want all you leftists out there to apply the simple "what would I be saying if George Bush did it?" test to yourself and then cry at your own hypocrisy.



Lets see

Lybia:

UN backing
Arab backing
Air Strikes only
New laws made around 2008 saying the type of response Gaddafi made is actually a legit reason for international reaction.

Iraq:

NO UN backing
Saddam was complying with 1441.
No WMDs (If you think he sent to Syria or Iran then you are stupid cause that would be the same as the US sending its top weapons to the soviets if a 3rd party was going to invade and beat them).
No end Strategy.
Bush and Blair complete deceit on reasons.
Basically Bush vengeance war.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 19, 2011)

@fieryfalcon

What happen in North Africa have a lot of impact on Europe. We can ignore what happen there. They are close to us. I understand for Americans, it's just an other far conflict but for us, it's next to us. Unlike the Iraqi war, it's backed by the Arab league and it's not an invasion, our work is to limit Gaddafi's army intervention against Benghazi.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 19, 2011)

It's started, the first french shoot, iit's on a military vehicle.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 19, 2011)

I saw the rebels begging for help on national TV, holding up children that would have been slaughtered by Gaddafi's army, and i can only wonder now if morality in this case can serve us well in the future 

I don't know if history will show this to be different than Iraq in terms of military engagement(as we're going to have to carry this thing in the end if we have to turn against the entire army as opposed to a no fly zone), but i do know that i'd feel good helping people who needed it.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 19, 2011)

"Feeling good" should be the _last_ reason to use military force.

I mean, that was Bush's entire reason for going into Iraq!


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 19, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> "Feeling good" should be the _last_ reason to use military force.
> 
> I mean, that was Bush's entire reason for going into Iraq!



Bush's reason for going into Iraq was to get revenge on Saddam Hussein. He made up all excuses afterward, including WMD  He had no real problem with letting the people there die beforehand, he just used them as an excuse to attack the guy who had escaped years before, the same way he used 9/11 as an excuse to deceive others with Iraq as well.


Using the specter of 9/11 as a mental tactic, which i thought was a legitimate reason to go kill Osama Bin laden in Afganistan which was harboring him, is not the same as this which is a coalition force to enforce a no fly zone. which will probably just happen to spiral into destroying Gaddafi in the long run  As he won't respect a no fly zone against his dissidents


----------



## Cornbreesha (Mar 19, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Humanitarian missions in Japan, War in Libya, Afganistan, Yemen, ect
> 
> the US is pretty stretched isnt it



Maybe this is why the ecomony is bad ...More money going out than coming in


----------



## fieryfalcon (Mar 19, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> Lets see
> 
> Lybia:
> 
> ...



Arab league and UN want to do this?  Fine, let them do it.  America doesn't need to be involved
Air Strikes only means that we wreck the place and then leave.  
New laws made by who?  We don't have a world government; new laws made by a dictator talking shop don't mean anything.

Resolution 1441 stated that Saddam was in material breach of an earlier resolution.  
WMD wasn't the reason for the war, it was one of many reasons
What do you mean no end strategy?  The Obama administration is calling Iraq a huge success.  
Bush & Blair did not deliberately mislead; they acted on the best information they had at the time
You can't read Bush's mind

Le M?le Dominant - What happens anywhere in the Middle East affects the whole world, but the whole mantra from the left has been no blood for oil, I.E., no blood for something that "affects" you if you haven't been attacked.  Europe hasn't been attacked.  America especially hasn't been attacked and we're far away.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 19, 2011)

Cornbreesha said:


> Maybe this is why the ecomony is bad ...More money going out than coming in



War as well as low taxes for corps and rich folks, which is the primary source of revenue, oh and the wall street banksters.

Yeah we're the largest economy in the world, but that won't hold the USA up forever.

I'd use the next statement as true call for budgetary/healthcare/trade reform, but i've said it too much already.


----------



## Alien (Mar 19, 2011)

"A first target was engaged and destroyed," Laurent Teisseire, a French defence ministry spokesman, has told Reuters."


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 19, 2011)

The French just said their planes are already firing on military vehicles.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 19, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Bush's reason for going into Iraq was to get revenge on Saddam Hussein. He made up all excuses afterward, including WMD  He had no real problem with letting the people there die beforehand, he just used them as an excuse to attack the guy who had escaped years before, the same way he used 9/11 as an excuse to deceive others with Iraq as well.
> 
> 
> Using the specter of 9/11 as a mental tactic, which i thought was a legitimate reason to go kill Osama Bin laden in Afganistan which was harboring him, is not the same as this which is a coalition force to enforce a no fly zone. which will probably just happen to spiral into destroying Gaddafi in the long run  As he won't respect a no fly zone against his dissidents



Revenge is just one part of "feeling good."

Again, how is using military force to make yourself feel better any different from Bush's intent?


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 19, 2011)

Gonna be interesting whether we see Arab planes over Libya or if their inclusion in the coalition was just window dressing.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 19, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Gonna be interesting whether we see Arab planes over Libya or if their inclusion in the coalition was just window dressing.



Use rational logic for a minute and the answer will be all too obvious.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 19, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> Le Mâle Dominant - What happens anywhere in the Middle East affects the whole world, but the whole mantra from the left has been no blood for oil, I.E., no blood for something that "affects" you if you haven't been attacked.  *Europe hasn't been attacked.*  America especially hasn't been attacked and we're far away.



So we have to wait to be attacked ? Wait that Gaddafi win against the rebels and take his revenge on us by backing terrorism on our lands or fire plane in the Mediterranean. This guys is dangerous now and only few kilometers from us. We can't ignore the threat he represent. Our mission is to support the rebels with a no fly zone and keep Benghazi safe. The rest of the job must be done by the rebels. 
About what you call "the whole mantra from the left", it's an Americano American problem. I don't know how work your politics.


In the past France helped Americans rebels against the British empire, it was wrong ???


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 19, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> Use rational logic for a minute and the answer will be all too obvious.



Point taken


----------



## impersonal (Mar 19, 2011)

stepdogg said:
			
		

> Colonel al-Gaddafi has made great strides in bringing Libya back into the community of nations, and deserves a large amount of praise for doing so, but that should not lessen the Libyan government's desire or responsibility to provide adequate defense for its citizens.


Are you serious? Gaddafi sponsored islamic terrorism and repeatedly insulted other nations. He only kept getting invited abroad because he was that crazy unpredictable old man with lots of money (oil)... And now he's managed to make himself permanently a persona non grata... and Libya as well as long as he still leads it.


----------



## Clouds Of Napalm (Mar 19, 2011)

*French jets over Lybia*



> Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- French fighter jets deployed over Libya fired at a military vehicle on Saturday, the country's first strike against Moammar Gadhafi's military forces who earlier attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.



Usually the French are the first to run...


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 19, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> Revenge is just one part of "feeling good."
> 
> Again, how is using military force to make yourself feel better any different from Bush's intent?



Well for one thing, we'll have re-route this conversation, as the issue you raised about "feeling good" has nothing to do with what the current coalition thinks about enforcing a no fly zone. My initial post was referring only to how i felt in regards to helping the rebels in Libya being killed, and only my view.


I support helping people in need, not wars of choice. And this no fly zone helps people in need


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Mar 19, 2011)

France decided it wanted to be badass again.


----------



## tashtin (Mar 19, 2011)

Inb4 "France surrenders in the face of superior forces"

France deciding to be boss for a change - what a twist.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 19, 2011)

tashtin said:


> Inb4 "France surrenders in the face of superior forces"
> 
> France deciding to be boss for a change - what a twist.



Let's be honest, here...France has also surrendered in the face of _inferior_ forces.

And "French Jets Over Libya" is not nearly as catchy as "Bombs Over Baghdad."


----------



## Clouds Of Napalm (Mar 19, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> Let's be honest, here...France has also surrendered in the face of _inferior_ forces.
> 
> And "French Jets Over Libya" is not nearly as catchy as "Bombs Over Baghdad."



That's just the way I read it, and the post must have caught your eye.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 19, 2011)

Merging with existing Libya thread


----------



## tashtin (Mar 19, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> Let's be honest, here...France has also surrendered in the face of _inferior_ forces.



Seeing as how gaddafi is still rocking with "soviet union era" planes - 40 of which are operational (even less combat worthy) your prediction may yet come to pass... :Los


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 19, 2011)

tashtin said:


> Seeing as how gaddafi is still rocking with "soviet union era" planes - 40 of which are operational (even less combat worthy) your prediction may yet come to pass... :Los



I doubt it.  Honestly I predict any air to air combat turns into the world's most one sided fistfight caught on tape.


----------



## soulnova (Mar 19, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> I doubt it.  Honestly I predict any air to air combat turns into the world's most one sided fistfight caught on tape.



I'll get my popcorn then.


----------



## tashtin (Mar 19, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> I doubt it.  Honestly I predict any air to air combat turns into the world's most one sided fistfight caught on tape.



Well obviously, seeing as how France will have back-up 

Seriously, I doubt gaddafi is loopy enough to engage the world in a fight with tonka toys.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 19, 2011)

tashtin said:


> Well obviously, seeing as how France will have back-up
> 
> Seriously, I doubt gaddafi is loopy enough to engage the world in a fight with tonka toys.



It depends if they're going to remove him or not.  If so, there's no point in not fighting.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

tashtin said:


> Seeing as how gaddafi is still rocking with "soviet union era" planes - 40 of which are operational (even less combat worthy) your prediction may yet come to pass... :Los



Well it's more like 150. But yeah more or less what you're saying. If the Libyan air force even tries to take on the French they're going to get ripped a new asshole.


----------



## Alien (Mar 19, 2011)

> _Al Jazeera quotes sources saying French War planes have destroyed four tanks south west of Benghazi_


Little bit worried about this:


> _Activist group the Libyan Youth Movement tweets: "More conformations that people kidnapped across Libya namely Zwara and other areas to be used as human shields _


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 19, 2011)

> French warplanes have hit four tanks used by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi on the outskirts of the opposition stronghold of Benghazi, on a day when opposition fighters in the city reported coming under constant artillery and mortar fire.
> 
> The action marks the first international military move against the Libyan leader, and it comes a day after the UN Security Council authorised a no-fly zone over the North African country.
> 
> ...



Ghaddaffi on the other hand, seems to be



> Muammar Gaddafi has denounced backers of plans for a no-fly zone over his country and urged Libyans to take up arms and prepare to confront a possible invasion by Western powers.
> 
> Addressing selected supporters late on Tuesday, Gaddafi called the rebels "rats" and denounced Western nations. "They want Libyan oil," he said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 19, 2011)

COME AT ME BRO!


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 19, 2011)

soulnova said:


> Because the ones who started it were their own people, maybe? o_O
> 
> And yes, like someone else posted before, this feels as in LOTR when Aragon arrives to the battle with the army of ghosts to save the city. LOL



Yes but keep in mind that at one point in time that the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq were asking for help to overthrow Saddam Hussein when Saddam was gassing them by the thousands. The US did not respond because it knew that it would then be held accountable to rebuild the nation after the shooting dies down. The US would also have to prevent the country from falling into sectarian violence, which is exactly why Iraq is such a mess right now.

I haven't heard many people think deeply about why "the people started this revolution!" really makes a big difference. This may be un-politically correct, but does it really matter that much? Remember that Libya is a tribal, largely uneducated country and it might very well fall into a Iraq-like state of anarchy where every tribe tries to assert dominance. And what then? Should the French and British stay on? Who should they support? How long before we hear cries of neo-colonialism or actually have the Libyans attack the West again? Then the West is in for another quagmire that it can't afford. This is migh seem pessimistic but its not totally improbable. 

Just because these people want democracy does not mean that they are capable of handling it. Without law, order, or good institutions democracy leads to reigns of terror and anarchy.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

The Italians might be jumping into the fray pretty soon:




Tornado Fighters being armed with AGM-88 HARM's at Trapani Air Force Base. Those things are meant for use against SAM sites.


----------



## Xion (Mar 19, 2011)

Cornbreesha said:


> Maybe this is why the ecomony is bad ...More money going out than coming in



Well maybe if we reduced our military expenditures by a nice chunk that wouldn't matter.

But we don't, so might as well use it.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 19, 2011)

The US has apparently launched Tomahawk missiles on Libyan forces.


----------



## Alien (Mar 19, 2011)

And the British have set up a naval blockade


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 19, 2011)

.  They're excellent, and very clear.  

Can't wait till they impose a no Ghaddaffi zone too


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Mar 19, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> . They're excellent, and very clear.
> 
> Can't wait till they impose a no Ghaddaffi zone too


 
The roads in the middle east look better maintained then the ones here in Pennsylvania.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 19, 2011)

Looks like shit is going down as we speak


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

Right now the U.S. is launching Tomhawk missile attacks on Libyan air defense batteries outside Tripoli. I assume those SA-5 sites I was warning about the other day.

The launch platforms are 3 Submarines.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 19, 2011)

Blow his ass in to oblivion.


----------



## Derpie (Mar 19, 2011)

Megaharrison,

Did you spend time in the military?

That aside, I don't see the obligation here to intervene in this conflict. Libya is essentially having a civil war. 

If the US and other sovereign are presumed to be in the right with regards to invading in this instance, then it can be argued that the UN can justifiably sanction invasion at any point from which a government authorizes itself to murder its own citizens.

And given the US executive branch has and uses targeted killings against its own citizens, albeit dangerous ones, then it seems to me the UN has precedent to push the US for change, and if not that then invasion (it wouldn't ever happen but a good thought exercise nevertheless).


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

U.S. has taken up command of the operation from France aboard the . Britain, Italy, Canada, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, and Denmark will supposedly join in over the next few hours or days. Canadian F/A-18's and British Eurofighters are already at the Forward Operating Base at Trapani Italy.

The Operation has been dubbed Operation Odyssey Dawn.



			
				Derpie said:
			
		

> Megaharrison,
> 
> Did you spend time in the military?



The Israeli one yes.

Edit: Skynews has confirmed a British Submarine was involved in the missile launches. Everyone is hitting Gaddaffi at once.


----------



## Alien (Mar 19, 2011)

Is this the first time that Eurofighters are being deployed into a combat theater ?


----------



## birabudo (Mar 19, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> U.S. has taken up command of the operation from France aboard the . Britain, Italy, Canada, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, and Denmark will supposedly join in over the next few hours or days. Canadian F/A-18's and British Eurofighters are already at the Forward Operating Base at Trapani Italy.
> 
> The Operation has been dubbed Operation Odyssey Dawn.
> 
> ...



I am kind of puzzled are the air forces engaging Libyan armor all around the country or just around Benghazi and any info on what class US sub is launching tomahawks. Also it seems like some European countries are itching to test out new weapons


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 19, 2011)

These are the key points to the UN Resolution 



> Demands "the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians"
> 
> Demands that Libyan authorities "take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance".
> 
> ...



This should clarify what the UN is trying to do.  My only worry is that if they don't take out all the trash, we might see some nasty revenge terrorism from GhaddaffiCo


----------



## Derpie (Mar 19, 2011)

Alien said:


> Is this the first time Eurofighters have been deployed into a combat theater ?



That's interesting.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

Derpie said:
			
		

> Can we safely say, Megaharrison, the US has now embroiled itself into yet another war?



I guess, though this will just be an air war. Pretty clear on that.



stepdogg said:


> I am kind of puzzled are the air forces engaging Libyan armor all around the country or just around Benghazi and any info on what class US sub is launching tomahawks. Also it seems like some European countries are itching to test out new weapons



Right now, France is bombing Gaddaffi's forces around Benghazi with Rafale's/Mirage 2000's. American and British Submarines are launching tomahawk missile attacks on air defenses around Tripoli.

As for sub classes, Skynews says that the British sub is the HMS Triumph, which is a Trafalgar class. American ones are probably Los Angeles classes.



Alien said:


> Is this the first time Eurofighters have been deployed into a combat theater ?



Yes, though it should be noted that British aircraft haven't been deployed yet. They almost certainly will be over the next few hours however.


----------



## Derpie (Mar 19, 2011)

"while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory"

Does Libyan air space not count as Libyan territory?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 19, 2011)

No, it doesn't. We're just providing a chance for the rebels to stop being slaughtered by pro-Gaffadi forces. If they were able to overthrow him on their own, we wouldn't be needed.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 19, 2011)

Derpie said:


> Can we safely say, Megaharrison, the US has now embroiled itself into yet another war?
> 
> This would mean Barack Obama has brought the US into a war without congressional approval. That is unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment. The President cannot declare war unilaterally.



If that is the case then EVERY war the US has been involved in since WW2 (except Afghanistan) has been grounds for impeachment.


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Mar 19, 2011)

Operation ODYSSEY DAWN.  Good name.

And apparantly 110 tomahawks have been fired at Libya air defense targets thus far.......


Edit derpi.  The united states Signed the UN whatchamacallit in like 1946 ish.  And according to the us constitution any treaty the US signs is the supreme law of the land..  therefore it is not illegal to enforce a UN resolution.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 19, 2011)

Libya right now.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 19, 2011)

The 110 quote was apparently given by a Pentagon official.



Derpie said:


> It does not matter WHY we are doing it. All that matters is that Congress has NOT approved war measures in this case and the President hasn't sought their counsel. That is unconstitutional. Whatever the President's reasons, he cannot go about bombing other countries. These are clearly acts of war.



It's UN sanctioned. No one cares.


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 19, 2011)

The president can issue a limited response for I believe 30 days without a congressional approval of war. After that I believe for it to continue congress needs to approve it.

That is mainly what the Marines are for.


----------



## nagatopwnsall (Mar 19, 2011)

The only thing i find funny in all this is that we are going there to protect 'civilians' against gaddafi. These people are not 'civilians'. They stopped being civilians when they picked up arms against the government. They are now rebels. To pretend otherwise is foolishness.

Im tired of the west lying and cherry picking their 'revolutions'.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

First Tsurugi said:


> The 110 quote was apparently given by a Pentagon official



Yeah, I just saw that. Dayum....

Gaddaffi's air defense network was probably wiped out in a few seconds. So much for NATO holding back.


----------



## pikachuwei (Mar 19, 2011)

i saw the pentagon guy talking about 112 tomahawks launched 

i  'd


----------



## Derpie (Mar 19, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> The president can issue a limited response for I believe 30 days without a congressional approval of war. After that I believe for it to continue congress needs to approve it.
> 
> That is mainly what the Marines are for.



Can you link me to the proof here?


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Mar 19, 2011)

I think that number is up to 120 Now...  120 missles at 20 targets.....   no kill like overkill?


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 19, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Yeah, I just saw that. Dayum....
> 
> Gaddaffi's air defense network was probably wiped out in a few seconds. So much for NATO holding back.



Shock&Awe in this friend.

Though i suspect light casualties as most people would have fled obvious targets


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 19, 2011)

Dear People:  This thread is about Libya and the evolving situation there.  The specific legality of US involvement in the conflict is not an issue for discussion here.  If you want to argue about that, please start a thread in the debate forum.  Otherwise, expect infractions and possible bans for trolling.  

Thank you.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 19, 2011)

I hear Canadian jets are supposed to be deployed over the next few days


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Shock&Awe in this friend.
> 
> Though i suspect light casualties as most people would have fled obvious targets



Meh, you don't go for casualties with Tomahawks. You go for strategic assets. These probably focused on Libya's 6 SA-5 batteries, which were a pretty substantial threat to NATO aircraft. Of course I imagine those are now craters.

Edit: reports on Fox News that Britain and France have landed air control teams in Benghazi to direct airstrikes against besieging forces. Those certainly will be necessary to drive Gaddaffi away in any regard.


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 19, 2011)

Derpie said:


> Can you link me to the proof here?



Its 60 days actually.



This really only applies to if we are under attack(or there is a threat) but we do have agreements with out allies of when they go to war we usually follow suit. Then there is the obligation to the UN as well.





> Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons
> 
> The President is the military's commander-in-chief; however Article One gives Congress and not the President the authority to declare war. Presidents have often deployed troops with Congressional authorization, but without an explicit declaration of war. (*Since World War II, every major military action has been technically a U.S. military operation or a U.N. "police action", which are deemed legally legitimate by Congress, and various United Nations Resolutions because of decisions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Authorization for Use of Force.*[citation needed] This is also true in the case of the Korean War, which was only retroactively deemed a war—50 years to the day, after the fact—by a ceremonial Act of Congress.[citation needed]) This clause is included because it gives the President power over the troops, and under one commander, the military is bound to be more organized and efficient.[citation needed]
> 
> The President may require the "principal officer" of any executive department to tender his advice in writing. Thus, implicitly, the Constitution creates a Cabinet that includes the principal officers of the various departments.



I mixed it up with the one before it but apparently the president is able to act on this situation since its really a UN police action which is deemed legal by congress.

Afghanistan technically isnt a official war since there is no state that the US is actually at war with there. We arent at war with Afghanistan just rogue organizations that occupied the country at the time.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 19, 2011)

Derpie said:


> The US are the leaders in this mission and yet we cannot discuss their legality in being as such?
> 
> You are masquerading your bias as legitimate moderating here and it is both unbecoming and abusive.



Not, the US doesn't want to lead the mission. They wanted just to be part of the mission but doesn't want to take the lead. This is why they didn't start the operations first.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 19, 2011)

Derpie said:


> The US are the leaders in this mission and yet we cannot discuss their legality in being as such?
> 
> You are masquerading your bias as legitimate moderating here and it is both unbecoming and abusive.



I'm offering you the chance to eloquently lay out your case for the US's involvement being illegal in the appropriate sub-forum where you might interact with other intelligent posters in a meaningful manner without cluttering the flow of information in this thread.  That's exactly appropriate.


----------



## pikachuwei (Mar 19, 2011)

Derpie said:


> The US are the leaders in this mission and yet we cannot discuss their legality in being as such?
> 
> You are masquerading your bias as legitimate moderating here and it is both unbecoming and abusive.



few better ways to get banned than to start a rage war with a mod :3


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

NATO commander of this operation has been named:


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 19, 2011)

> Not, the US doesn't want to lead the mission. They wanted just to be part of the mission but doesn't want to take the lead. This is why they didn't start the operations first.



You sure? The guy in charge is American.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 19, 2011)

Derpie said:


> It does not matter WHY we are doing it. All that matters is that Congress has NOT approved war measures in this case and the President hasn't sought their counsel. That is unconstitutional. Whatever the President's reasons, he cannot go about bombing other countries. These are clearly acts of war.



Uh, you do realize that Clinton pretty much trashed Kosovo using nothing but Executive Orders, right? Executive Orders allow the President to execute pretty much anything that is not directly contrary to the will of Congress or the Constitution.

Essentially, in an emergency situation that cannot wait for Congressional approval, the President can use military force and later wait for Congressional acquiescence. If Congress later disapproves, the President's use of military force would end.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 19, 2011)

Mmh this is a NATO operation now ??? I thought the mission was decided without NATO. Or maybe NATO (rest of Europe) joined the French, British and Americans.


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 19, 2011)

As a US citizen, I see such conflicts as a continuation of the ethical principles that guided the foundation of my own nation. It's about free people vs. oppression. 

It's the U.N's prerogative to occasionally, after discretion and careful consideration, intervene in such a matter. This is an example of a just military conflict. The clear example of the enemy's leadership style is reason enough. How can an institution of civilization stand back and watch innocent people suffer for want of personal freedoms we take for granted?

I personally think we should hang the dogs who run North Korea from a tall bridge as well, when we're done.


----------



## Punpun (Mar 19, 2011)

@Pilaf, Then what about the X amount of authoritarian regime in the world ? (you know Saudi Arania, the junte in Birma, all South-Asia, Africa as a whole and the such ?)

---

As for the relevant topic.. This will be a curbstomp battle who will end as a bloody civil way if not done correctly..


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 19, 2011)

Libyan state television is claiming that they shot down a French plane and that the missiles struck civilian targets.

Of course considering the source this should be taken with a fistful of salt at best and completely disregarded at worst.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 19, 2011)

First Tsurugi said:


> Libyan state television is claiming that they shot down a French plane and that the missiles struck civilian targets.
> 
> Of course considering the source this should be taken with a fistful of salt at best and completely disregarded at worst.



I wonder who will be Libya's Baghdad Bob


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 19, 2011)

First Tsurugi said:


> *Libyan state television is claiming that they shot down a French plane* and that the missiles struck civilian targets.
> 
> Of course considering the source this should be taken with a fistful of salt at best and completely disregarded at worst.



The french official said it's wrong.


----------



## pikachuwei (Mar 19, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Mmh this is a NATO operation now ??? I thought the mission was decided without NATO. Or maybe NATO (rest of Europe) joined the French, British and Americans.



well this is supposedly a UN resolution, and since all of NATO are in the UN, the NATO countries joining is no suprise

besides, NATO has always been the US's lapdog, they usually follow once Uncle Sam cracks his whip.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

French Chief of Staff has already said no French aircraft has been lost. Also that the French Air Force has used SCALP EG Cruise Missiles, first time they've been used.

Also, Libyan Baghdad Bob on CNN right now.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 19, 2011)

pikachuwei said:


> besides, NATO has always been the US's lapdog, they usually follow once Uncle Sam cracks his whip.



Britain and France were calling for this before the US.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 19, 2011)

From what i understand, NATO officially decided to join just few our ago. Before, it was just a France, UK, United States alliance.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 19, 2011)

It seems like everyone wants a piece of the libyan pie  i'm glad that the US takes a somewhat backseat  cowboys alienating our friend nations is a farcry from getting UN backed resolutions with a willing coalition, i like that option better cause the credibility factor is raised


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 19, 2011)

nagatopwnsall said:


> The only thing i find funny in all this is that we are going there to protect 'civilians' against gaddafi. These people are not 'civilians'. They stopped being civilians when they picked up arms against the government. They are now rebels. To pretend otherwise is foolishness.
> 
> Im tired of the west lying and cherry picking their 'revolutions'.



Thy were civillians when they were protesting peacefully and Gaddafi had his troops open fire on them.  Then Gaddafi lost all right (what little he really had) to rule over the nation.  He started it the moment he ordered his troops to open fire on UNARMED PEACEFUL PROTESTERS.

Sorry you fail try again.  Actually don't cause like 100% of the time you will just fail.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

French forces involved today:



The French Aircraft Carrier Degaulle plus a fleet of Frigates are on their way as well.

Other NATO forces to be involved in this:

-U.S.: 3 Submarines, 3 Destroyers, 3 Amphibious Assault Ships. Unknown number of F-16's and F-15E's being mobilized.
-U.K.: 1 Submarine, 1 Frigate, 12 Eurofighters and Tornados operating out of Cyprus
-Italy: 8 Tornado and F-16's
-Denmark: 6 F-16's
-Canada: 6 F/A-18's
-Spain: Unknown number of F/A-18's and Eurofighters
-Greece: 4 F-16's, 1 EMB-145 AEW&C
-Netherlands: 6 F-16's
-Norway: 4 F-16's

Sources: Al Jazeera stream, other articles I've come across on MP.net


----------



## pikachuwei (Mar 19, 2011)

wow EU pulling out their Eurofighters :3

what i would give to see some stratofortresses pounding the Libyan army into oblivion


----------



## Raiden (Mar 19, 2011)

lol @ blooger's on msnbc's website are vowing that Obama is destroying his presidency. It's ridiculous; the US cannot have an isolationist foriegn policy. Other countries are leading the assault, but that doesn't mean we can't help.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 19, 2011)

Who's saying that? Lol  As far as i can tell Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the coalition by the UK and France pushing the UN for the official resolution


----------



## Castiel (Mar 19, 2011)

It pains me that it's had to come to this


----------



## impersonal (Mar 19, 2011)

The plane destroyed today in Bengazi was actually one of those belonging to the rebels. They shot their own plane. They're cute, but if they keep doing that kind of stuff they'll deserve to lose.

...

In other news, Gaddafi is saying right now that he intends to target _"civilian and military targets around the Mediterranean"_.

Libyan TV also claimed a French plane was shot down. France denies, "All planes are back safely".


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

Gadaffi could hit some Italian islands with his Scud-B missiles, such as Lampedusa (which was targeted in the past). Hopefully those are targeted next if they haven't been already.


----------



## Mako (Mar 19, 2011)

"U.S launches air attack"  We're totally fucked.


----------



## Punpun (Mar 19, 2011)

Targeting Lampedusa = Targeting African immigrants for the precision.. Hardly a direct blow to European country..


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 19, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Gadaffi could hit some Italian islands with his Scud-B missiles, such as Lampedusa (which was targeted in the past). Hopefully those are targeted next if they haven't been already.



It's hard to imagine that they wouldn't be.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 19, 2011)

impersonal said:


> In other news, Gaddafi is saying right now that he intends to target _"civilian and military targets around the Mediterranean"_.



Gaddafi can do what he said ???? His military can do that ???

Also, i remember when the protest started, he said the rebels were manipulated by Al *Quaida* and after the decision of a no fly zone, he said he would team up with *Al Quaida*

...so Gaddafi going to team up with those who manipulate the rebels against him ??? No sense, no sense


----------



## impersonal (Mar 19, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Gaddafi can do what he said ???? His military can do that ???


Well, Libya is not far away from Europe, so it stands to reason that he can touch Italy and Malta. I don't think France is too far either. But in any case, it is probably possible to intercept most of what he could send our way. MH probably knows.

I doubt Gaddafi will do anything like that, anyway. I bet he's bluffing; he probably understands that if he did something like that he wouldn't survive the backlash.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

Oh ho ho, French fighters with Israeli targeting pods. Naughty France 



			
				impersonal said:
			
		

> Well, Libya is not far away from Europe, so it stands to reason that he can touch Italy and Malta. I don't think France is too far either. But in any case, it is probably possible to intercept most of what he could send our way. MH probably knows.



His Scud-B's have a max range of 300km. You do the math of what falls into that from the Libyan coast.

That's all he got for attacking Europe.


----------



## Castiel (Mar 19, 2011)

so the question remains will Quaddafi
 a). kill himself
 b). somehow escape
 c). be taken captive and put on trial
 or
 d). be captured by his people and given a full Mussolini


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Mar 19, 2011)

Kilogram said:


> so the question remains will Quaddafi
> a). kill himself
> b). somehow escape
> c). be taken captive and put on trial
> ...


 
I like the idea of d


----------



## Emperor Joker (Mar 19, 2011)

Kilogram said:


> so the question remains will Quaddafi
> a). kill himself
> b). somehow escape
> c). be taken captive and put on trial
> ...



Option D sounds about right


----------



## Castiel (Mar 19, 2011)

A classic for a reason


----------



## Punpun (Mar 19, 2011)

Kilogram said:


> so the question remains will Quaddafi
> c). be taken captive and put on trial



C) sounds about right.. It would also give more authority to international law so it would be all good in the end..

Any other option are the easy way out..


----------



## iander (Mar 19, 2011)

Option C is what I would prefer but its up to the Libyan people to decide his fate so option D is definitely possible knowing what Gaddafi has done to his people.


----------



## Raiden (Mar 19, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Oh ho ho, French fighters with Israeli targeting pods. Naughty France



That's one sexy mammajamma


----------



## Alien (Mar 19, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> French forces involved today:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Belgium is sending 6 F-16's that were on training in Greece so they should be ready for combat deployment soon.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 19, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> His Scud-B's have a max range of 300km. You do the math of what falls into that from the Libyan coast.
> 
> That's all he got for attacking Europe.



300km? That's rather pathetic, he can't even touch Malta with that...


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 19, 2011)

Kilogram said:


> so the question remains will Quaddafi
> a). kill himself
> b). somehow escape
> c). be taken captive and put on trial
> ...



To be the cynic, Option E: Manages to stay in power and trolls both the protests and the West


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 19, 2011)

I say B.  I bet he has somehow already snuck out in the past few hours and will be in Venezuela by end of the weekend.


----------



## Alien (Mar 19, 2011)

_An un-named French official tells the AFP news agency that the United Arab Emirates has pledged 24 aircraft to the coalition and Qatar between four and six._
_
"Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses have been "severely disabled" by a barrage of US-led missile strikes launched on Saturday, a US national security official said"_


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

impersonal said:


> 300km? That's rather pathetic, he can't even touch Malta with that...



Note that it's possible he upgraded them with assistance from a friendly country that is capable with Scuds (Syria, N. Korea, Turkey, etc.) to Scud-C Standard in which case they'd have a range of like 500km. The best source on the matter (INSS) says they only operate the Scud-B though.


----------



## Kittan (Mar 19, 2011)

Why didn't the Arab League take leadership on the No Fly Zone?


----------



## pikachuwei (Mar 19, 2011)

probably because they dont have the capabilities =/

apparently gadaffi was on radio just a while ago, i saw it on BBC


----------



## Raiden (Mar 19, 2011)

Everyone buzzing about the 112 missiles the US fired on twitter : /.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

Kittan said:


> Why didn't the Arab League take leadership on the No Fly Zone?



Because the Arabs have been having the West fight their wars for them for quite some time now.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 19, 2011)

How much did the French and British and others do?


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 19, 2011)

I wouldn't put it past him to try and sneak some teams into Southern Italy to go after soft targets.

Anyways from the CNN Live Blog



> [9:20 p.m. ET, 3:20 a.m. in Libya] Britain's Royal Air Force the RAF has launched Stormshadow missiles from a number of Tornado GR4 fast jets as part of a series of coordinated coalition strikes against Libya, the Ministry of Defense said.
> 
> "We made clear that if Gaddafi did not comply with the UN Security Council Resolution 1973, it would be enforced through military action. Our Armed Forces have therefore participated in a co-ordinated international coalition strike against key military installations," defense secretary Liam Fox said in a statement.
> 
> "The fast jets flew 3,000 miles from RAF Marham and back making this the longest range bombing mission conducted by the RAF since the Falklands conflict," he said. "HMS Westminster is off the coast of Libya and HMS Cumberland is in the region ready to support operations. Typhoon aircraft are also standing by to provide support."



The Storm Shadow missile is a cruise missile with a 450kg warhead tuned for hard target penetration.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 19, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:
			
		

> I wouldn't put it past him to try and sneak some teams into Southern Italy to go after soft targets.



That would be very hard to pull off, especially with how relatively unreliable Gaddaffi's men have been shown to be.



> The Storm Shadow missile is a cruise missile with a 450kg warhead tuned for hard target penetration



My guess is they hit command bunkers, imo.

France used 14 of them earlier today though, so Brits were a few hours too late to be the first to use them in combat.


----------



## Kittan (Mar 19, 2011)

The pro-Gadaffi forces claim to have shot down several fighter planes (no proof yet) and are calling this another 'barbaric Western crusade'. I guess the Arab League haven't yet got involved because 1. half of their governments are on the verge of toppling 2. the Arab world are incapable of making decisions that benefit their people... 
But that's just my bias towards the Arab world as the best they have got to a democratically elected government is Hamas. Egypt have a good chance of being taken over by the Brotherhood of Islam come the elections. I wonder what the true political motivation for the Arab League not entering the fray and lending credibility to the UN intervention in Libya is.
It's a real shame that the international view on the US has been tainted to such an extent that they have to think twice about stepping into conflict situations when they should rightly so do.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 19, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> That would be very hard to pull off, especially with how relatively unreliable Gaddaffi's men have been shown to be.



Unreliable or not, if you leave Gaddaffi in a position of power & influence, he has a history of ahem....  I'm not saying they'd be any good in a firefight, but they don't have to be.  All you need is a source of high explosives in the wrong place...boom...and you get something like the Madrid bombings.

I guess we shall have to wait and see.


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 19, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Unreliable or not, if you leave Gaddaffi in a position of power & influence, he has a history of ahem....  I'm not saying they'd be any good in a firefight, but they don't have to be.  All you need is a source of high explosives in the wrong place...boom...and you get something like the Madrid bombings.
> 
> I guess we shall have to wait and see.



Seriously, there's an old maxim for this kind of deal. "If you strike a king, make sure to kill him." Gaddafi and his followers better all be dead at the end of this, otherwise the West is going to deal with even more shit after the shooting dies down.


----------



## Sky is Over (Mar 19, 2011)

IMO, the conflict will be short, say by two months at best. Simply, he had oil, he couldn't handle things responsibly and started fucking with the prices, brought it on himself by acting out in such a violent way. If he probably resigned and handed over control to the military (which already seemed in mind to taking their piece of the pie) it wouldn't have come down this. 

This is Obama's GulfNorth African War.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 19, 2011)

Sky is Over said:


> IMO, the conflict will be short, say by two months at best. *Simply, he had oil, he couldn't handle things responsibly and started fucking with the prices*, brought it on himself by acting out in such a violent way. If he probably resigned and handed over control to the military (which already seemed in mind to taking their piece of the pie) it wouldn't have come down this.
> 
> This is Obama's GulfNorth African War.



What are you talking about?


----------



## Raiden (Mar 19, 2011)

But the US isn't leading strikes, Sky is Over .


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 19, 2011)

Let's just hope a decent government comes out of this and Libya doesn't turn into another Congo or Somalia.


----------



## Sky is Over (Mar 19, 2011)

impersonal said:


> What are you talking about?



Hmmm, I'm referring the action of disrupting the flow of oil as an OPEC country itself was indirect, but still should have been on his mind when this problem arose.

@Raiden, our role's still there, one way or another it will eventually fall back on us.


----------



## Xion (Mar 19, 2011)

East and West Libya anyone? 

Better yet, Libya (rebel-held) and the DPRL (Democratic People's Republic of Libya, a.k.a. West Libya Is Best Libya)!


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 19, 2011)

Raiden said:


> But the US isn't leading strikes, Sky is Over .



Considering the UN operations are being run off of the USS Mount Whitney, the overall commander is American, the majority of firepower in the region is American, and the US just launched the vast majority of those 100+ cruise missiles, I'd say you should probably rethink those statements.

We might not be flying CAP missions or bombing tanks with jets and drones, but you'd have to be impossibly dense to believe that this is anything but an American-run operation. If this does escalate to 24-hour bombardment missions, I'd put money on drones entering the fray.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 20, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Unreliable or not, if you leave Gaddaffi in a position of power & influence, he has a history of ahem....  I'm not saying they'd be any good in a firefight, but they don't have to be.  All you need is a source of high explosives in the wrong place...boom...and you get something like the Madrid bombings.
> 
> I guess we shall have to wait and see.



Speaking of which if the bomber is still alive I wonder if a British or American missile will "Accidentally" hit his residence.


----------



## Raiden (Mar 20, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> Considering the UN operations are being run off of the USS Mount Whitney, the overall commander is American, the majority of firepower in the region is American, and the US just launched the vast majority of those 100+ cruise missiles, I'd say you should probably rethink those statements.



I was being sarcastic man .

EDIT: But in all seriousness, the US only plans to play such an active role for literally the next few days. Admiral Gortney, speaking from the Pentagon, said that the US would shortly transfer leading roles to European allies.


----------



## Vom Osten (Mar 20, 2011)

Maybe the Euro's will finally be able to manage a war without Uncle Sam's assistance


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 20, 2011)

More from the CNN liveblog


> [1:10 a.m. ET, 7:10 a.m. in Libya] Fighter jets were seen flying over the Libyan city of Benghazi on Sunday morning. It was not immediately clear who the fighter jets belonged to.
> 
> China's foreign ministry expressed regret over the military strike on Libya and said it does not agree with use of force in international relations.
> 
> ...



Hugo as usual.  Now the Spaniards are in on it too.  Gotta love all that hot, naked aggression fucking up Gadhaffi's shit.


----------



## Raiden (Mar 20, 2011)

I find FOX to be surprisingly informative.

Interesting conversation between a series of former generals and experts.


----------



## -Dargor- (Mar 20, 2011)

Raiden said:


> I find FOX to be surprisingly informative.
> 
> Interesting conversation between a series of former generals and experts.



Well obviously when it's not about the US itself or anything that could make a political side look stupid they don't bother to make stuff up 

Anyway, kadhafi's mind is clearly gone, you'd think that the guy hearing all the "we're coming to kick your ass" coming from the big players on the UN would figure 'hey, I'll just take my money, step down and run away to some sunny beach country somewhere" but no, he'll just sit there until the US grab him and spend the rest of his short life in jail.


----------



## nee4speed111 (Mar 20, 2011)

*Allied Forces Attack Libya*



> U.S. and coalition forces launched military strikes against Libya, a calculated gamble that a rapid, and substantial attack could knock out loyalist support for strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
> 
> In an opening salvo, U.S. and U.K. forces on Saturday unleashed around 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan targets. U.S. Vice. Adm. William Gortney told reporters that the missiles, which struck Libya around 3 p.m. EDT, were aimed at more than 20 Libyan air-defense sites.
> 
> ...


----------



## Xion (Mar 20, 2011)

Well I hope his sons are comfy. If they want to go out and be socialites like the Hiltons again in foreign nations as they siphon Libya's oil money away from the people they'll likely be arrested by Interpol and face a war crimes tribunal!

Go the Uday and Qusay way! To the grave!


----------



## Raiden (Mar 20, 2011)

-Dargor- said:


> Well obviously when it's not about the US itself or anything that could make a political side look stupid they don't bother to make stuff up



When you can argue the opposite is true. Reality is that they criticized the hell out of Obama based on what I've seen so far...it was convincing though.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 20, 2011)

CNN is of the opinion that this goes far beyond a no-fly zone, and is an excuse to crushing Ghaddaffi militarily.  We have a demonstrably competent rebellion to cover the ground game.  This sounds an awful like the French support of the US during our inaugural rebellion against the British Crown.

If Ghaddaffi's stick is broken, then he can't play strongman.  If he can't play strongman, then he's fucked as the rebels will have the morale, and firepower to go after him


----------



## Xion (Mar 20, 2011)

Raiden said:


> When you can argue the opposite is true. Reality is that they criticized the hell out of Obama based on what I've seen so far...it was convincing though.



I especially hate when Fox News say Obama is too indecisive and shit like that regarding this affair or call him the "invisible" president.

As opposed to who? Bush? You mean the guy whose war were still fighting while you supported him? The "decider" who decided to end so many lives and to put this economy in the stinker?

I don't like Obama, but at least I'm not Fox News.


----------



## Raiden (Mar 20, 2011)

I agree Xion. They criticized as almost head in the clouds about how to deal with this, and determining the current direction as the way forward because Hillary strongly urged him to do so.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 20, 2011)

Merging with existing thread


----------



## Xion (Mar 20, 2011)

The only two decent news stations I get on digital cable are CNN and Fox News and I divide my time between them 98%/2% as these dual crises unfold! There was a time when I watched Fox as it did have some good experts on and different coverage from CNN, but it's gotten really bad lately to the point that I don't want my TV to even have to spend too much time on that channel.

There was interesting coverage though showing tracer fire on Fox News recently, but CNN has that too from another correspondent in Tripoli, so it's pretty much the same as CNN, except a different tone and they hate on Obama every chance they get.

Hope Al-Jazeera comes to cable soon!


----------



## makeoutparadise (Mar 20, 2011)

The only way this could fail is if Gadhafi actually places a real cease fire in action then the UN and international community can't throw him out of  power, because he's not killing people anymore and  he'll still have control of most of the country as the rebels hold out. 
stale and mate


----------



## tashtin (Mar 20, 2011)

contributions of the allied forces so far - 

*US*: Firing guided missiles from USS Barry and USS Stout; providing amphibious warships, and command-and-control ship USS Mount Whitney

*France*: Carried out mission with at least 12 warplanes including Mirage fighters and Rafale jets; deploying aircraft carrier, warships

*UK*: Providing Typhoon and Tornado jet fighters; surveillance planes; HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland; submarines

*Italy*: Nato base at Naples understood to be central hub; other Mediterranean bases made available

*Canada*: Providing six F-18 fighter jets and 140 personnel

Libyan targets




Gaddafi's response to the action - 



> After the missile bombardment and the air strikes, Col Gaddafi made a brief speech calling on people to resist.
> 
> "Civilian and military targets in the air and sea will be liable to serious danger in the Mediterranean," he said.
> 
> ...



Gaddafi is gonna tie Charlie Sheen for the troll of 2011...

source - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972


----------



## Xion (Mar 20, 2011)

Gaddafi, as insane as he might be, is fucking smart. You don't get to be in power for 40+ years and play both aggressor and friend of the West without some brains.

He's crazy as a cuckoo and sly as a fox.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 20, 2011)

Xion said:


> Gaddafi, as insane as he might be, is fucking smart. You don't get to be in power for 40+ years and play both aggressor and friend of the West without some brains.
> 
> He's crazy as a cuckoo and sly as a fox.



Whatever intelligence he might have left in him, is overshadowed by his insanity and stupidity.


----------



## Squeek (Mar 20, 2011)

He's Orochimaru materialised. He's the final villain


----------



## Xion (Mar 20, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> Whatever intelligence he might have left in him, is overshadowed by his insanity and stupidity.



Oh he's batshit crazy. But the guy is playing his hand rather well against the West right now. Probably the best he can short.

I mean even if he surrendered now, he'd be screwed and thrown in jail for war crimes.


----------



## Squeek (Mar 20, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> Considering the UN operations are being run off of the USS Mount Whitney, the overall commander is American, the majority of firepower in the region is American, and the US just launched the vast majority of those 100+ cruise missiles, I'd say you should probably rethink those statements.
> 
> We might not be flying CAP missions or bombing tanks with jets and drones, but you'd have to be impossibly dense to believe that this is anything but an American-run operation. If this does escalate to 24-hour bombardment missions, I'd put money on drones entering the fray.



It's actually UK/France led intervention... It's French planes that went to the battlefield and recon missions. They're not receiving orders from the US however the USS Mount Whitney is used to coordinate and integrate different forces to maintain communication when implementing the no-fly zone.
As structured in the UN Resolution, any country can participate and use force to protect civilian interest as long as the Secretary General of the UNSC is informed by their action.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 20, 2011)

CBS is reporting three US B-2 Stealth Bombers dropped 40 bombs on a major Libyan airfield.


----------



## Xion (Mar 20, 2011)

Somehow this seems so apt:

[YOUTUBE]sWS-FoXbjVI[/YOUTUBE]

It's funny what a little difference can make like multi-national cooperation and an actual cause for action.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 20, 2011)

Sky is Over said:


> Hmmm, I'm referring the action of disrupting the flow of oil as an OPEC country itself was indirect, but still should have been on his mind when this problem arose.



I think that's a completely wrong interpretation of the whole thing. In terms of oil, Gaddafi was a solution, not a problem. He was abandoned by the west due to pressure from people (voters) and thus he was indeed on the process of being a problem in terms of oil as well (retaliation).

This probably played a role in the decision to attack. But Gaddafi's error was not oil. He had been gracefully selling his oil to the west for years. His error was being a dictator and criminally repressing the opposition; this is what led to what we're seeing now.

We're going to see a lot of "this is all for the oil" crap in the next few weeks/months, but this is all ignoring that Gaddafi was objectively one the worst dictators around, and at least of the Arab world. Without that, public opinion (remember, the west is mostly democratic) would never accept a war over there.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 20, 2011)

It's interesting to see there are different missions with different names. The French mission is called "Opération Harmattan", the American mission is called "Odyssey Dawn". The French and the Americans don't have the same mission.


----------



## Xion (Mar 20, 2011)

Good news everyone!:


However last I heard on CNN, Misrata was under extremely heavy shelling and some guy called in pleading for help. 

EDIT: Our op name is the best! Odyssey Dawn FTW except for the "long-lasting" connotation!


----------



## Luxiano (Mar 20, 2011)

​



> but this is all ignoring that Gaddafi was objectively one the worst dictators around



He is pretty much the worst if we exclude good ol' Kim perhaps.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 20, 2011)

I'm really surprised by the American name, I think it's terrible. 

Firstly, the Odyssey was very long; calling this _Odyssey Dawn_ suggests that the US will take part in other actions in the Mediterranean region. 

Secondly, that would make Libya the "lotus-eaters" drug addicts, which is, erm, just weird.

Finally, you don't want to portray this as something done "by the west" (hence the involvement of Arab countries), so referring to the ancient Greeks (who gave birth to western civilisation) is not necessarily a good idea, especially with Gaddafi painting this as a "crusade".

That said it's just a name, and most people won't make that kind of in-depth analysis ;-)


----------



## Xion (Mar 20, 2011)

impersonal said:


> I'm really surprised by the American name, I think it's terrible. Firstly, the Odyssey was very long; this suggests that the US will take part in other actions in the mediterranean region. Secondly, that would make Libya the "lotus-eaters" drug addicts, which is, erm, just weird.



But it sounds cool and that is the most important part.


----------



## Dionysus (Mar 20, 2011)

It probably is a long trek if one expects this to end with a Libyan democracy.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 20, 2011)

Because there's been a bit of disagreement here over whether or not the Americans have taken oven: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12799493



> He explained that the UK forces were under the command of the US, as were all the other participants.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 20, 2011)

The remains of Libyan tanks/artillery/air defenses that were besieging Benghazi after the French got through with it. The bottom 2 were Palmaria SPG's, Italian designs. Europe has become accustomed to blowing up its own tech in the hands of dictators these last few decades.

And it seems the T-72U still has that nasty habit of having its turret fly through the air if it takes a hit. 

Lastly, over the night NATO ended Gaddaffi's air defense network and air force. Didn't even last 24 hours.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 20, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


>



Be afraid of the sight African/Arab dictators, be very afraid


----------



## stream (Mar 20, 2011)

Raiden said:


> I find FOX to be surprisingly informative.



 This made me laugh


----------



## kayanathera (Mar 20, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


>



no more flying for these


----------



## Mael (Mar 20, 2011)

Arab League now bitching and moaning. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110320



Lazy whiners.  You asked for this shit and now you backpedal.  You're fucking worthless.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 20, 2011)

tanks fly now Oo


----------



## T4R0K (Mar 20, 2011)

Mael said:


> Arab League now bitching and moaning.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110320
> 
> ...



Bitches may have seen what can happen to dictators and oppressive regimes which many of them are, and now fear they could be next.

And I hope they're afraid. 

Be honest for once and don't support something just to criticize it and backpedal when the show gets serious, backstabbing bitches.


----------



## xenopyre (Mar 20, 2011)

Mael said:


> Arab League now bitching and moaning.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110320
> 
> ...


To be fair they supported the no fly zone not the bombing of Gadhafi's forces . but yeah they are just some lazy ass whiners


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 20, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> tanks fly now Oo



No, but depending on the "tank" they shoot at things that fly. It is hard to have a no fly zone, if you are being shot at from the ground.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 20, 2011)

Mael said:


> Arab League now bitching and moaning.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110320
> 
> ...



Saw it coming. 

Apparently, they believed Western powers would just hover around the skies like sitting ducks


----------



## very bored (Mar 20, 2011)

Mael said:


> Arab League now bitching and moaning.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110320
> 
> ...



How long did that take, 12 hours?


----------



## Dionysus (Mar 20, 2011)

Russia has complained too.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Mar 20, 2011)




----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 20, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> No, but depending on the "tank" they shoot at things that fly. It is hard to have a no fly zone, if you are being shot at from the ground.



You don't even have to make that argument.

The resolution explicitly states that "all measures" are approved to "protect civilians". Gaddaffi's ground forces were used in attacks against Benghazi yesterday, and civilians were killed in the battle. Thus his ground forces, tanks, and so on are legitimate targets.

As for the Arabs regimes being whiny turncoats mere hours after begging the West to fight another war for them, I am hardly surprised.


----------



## Xion (Mar 20, 2011)

xenopyre said:


> To be fair they supported the no fly zone not the bombing of Gadhafi's forces . but yeah they are just some lazy ass whiners



Apparently they also have no idea that ground troops can provide AA capabilities. Most of the bombing (>90%) has been concentrated on taking out AA capabilities. And now they're bitching. They are fucking worthless.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 20, 2011)

Shouldn't the arab league actually know what goes on in enforcing a no-fly zone? oO


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 20, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Shouldn't the arab league actually know what goes on in enforcing a no-fly zone? oO



That would imply that they've actually fought a war without the West holding their hands through it.


----------



## Xion (Mar 20, 2011)

Then you have Russia saying to stop the "indiscriminate use of force" which is so incredibly laughable considering their ruthless reoccupation of Georgia in 2008. Same with China, except they are rampant human rights abusers and love to put their backing behind dictatorial regimes that work in their interest.

Honestly, it's quite the sick game as these nations lie through their teeth. Now with the Arab League latest duplicity it's going to make the entire situation turn to all hell pretty quickly.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 20, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Shouldn't the arab league actually know what goes on in enforcing a no-fly zone? oO



That would imply that the Arab League was competent.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 20, 2011)

I like how some people complain about arrogant Western imperialism when no other major power or regional organization have the cajones to intervene in major human rights violations. Nothing would satisfy me more if the regional countries could handle their own shitholes, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening.

AL is basically covering its flank in case lots of civilian casualties occure or Gaddafi survives.


----------



## Kittan (Mar 20, 2011)

Russia and China could have vetoed. They didn't. Along with the Arab League they've done well to build up their diplomatic chips against the West.



> AL is basically covering its flank in case lots of civilian casualties occure or Gaddafi survives.



What's interesting is the stance they'll have to take when the next Arab League government is threatened by popular uprising. I'd bet it's going to be changing more times than an Oscar presenter's outfit.

And animosity towards the governments not as englihtened as our own aside, it's actually very difficult for Russia / China / Arab League to take a strong stance considering they don't have the moral legs to stand on... even if they did have the best intentions.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 20, 2011)

China and Russia should just ignore the situation and don't comment on it.  Especially Russia that want to convince us to create a military union with them. Their lack of support for our own interest don't help. Libya is far from Russia....but very close to Europe.

BTW: France answer to the critics by saying Qatar's planes flying in the Libyan airspace as part of the mission....


----------



## impersonal (Mar 20, 2011)

China (Tibet), Russia (Chechnya) and the Arab League (dictator club) all say that we're bad. Hitler also released a statement from his hideout in the amazonian forest: _"Stop killing those poor semites! What about human rights?"_

What's worse is a bunch of morons will believe them, in the Arab world of course (though here we're talking about the same ones who riot to their own death over fake cartoons)... But also in France itself; partly because Sarkozy has (with good reason) become so unpopular that if he was to single-handedly cure cancer and bring world peace, most people would still criticize him for it.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 20, 2011)

The funniest part is the Arab League is condemning this while not raising a peep about the Saudi-led invasion of Bahrain by 5 Arab Nations to put down protesters.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 20, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> No, but depending on the "tank" they shoot at things that fly. It is hard to have a no fly zone, if you are being shot at from the ground.



Sorry but that comment I made was a lame joke really to 



kayanathera said:


> no more flying for these



I wasn't being serious and actually support the attacks on Lybia's ground forces.


----------



## Darth Xanatos (Mar 20, 2011)

What did the whiny Arab league expect?? Bunch of hypocrites!  

If the west doesn`t attack Gaddhafi`s ground units he will destroy the rebels despite the no fly zone....


----------



## Raiden (Mar 20, 2011)

Someone tell the Arab League that as many has 8000 Libyans have been killed since the revolt. It doesn't make any sense to let this thing drag on when the allies have the capacity crush Gaddafi's forces.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 20, 2011)

That whole area is just a mess . . .


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 20, 2011)

USA to hand over military command



> he US has said it expects to hand over control of military operations against Libya within days to either a UK-France coalition or Nato.
> 
> Meanwhile in Tripoli, journalists were shown a ruined building in Col Muammar Gaddafi's compound that officials said was hit by a missile late on Sunday.
> 
> ...



Seems to me the Europeans are the ones really gunning for Ghadaffi at this point, meaning the decision making structure is probably very horizontal (Everyone doing what they feel is right to enforce the resolution).  A France-UK coalition leading the operation has a very good chance of turning out to be fatal to our favorite Libyan dictator.  

It would be very tragic accident if a mis-communication or technical error somehow caused a cruise missile or bomb to hit the wrong spot and unintentionally kill the poor man.


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 20, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> USA to hand over military command
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me the Europeans are the ones really gunning for Ghadaffi at this point, meaning the decision making structure is probably very horizontal (Everyone doing what they feel is right to enforce the resolution).  A France-UK coalition leading the operation has a very good chance of turning out to be fatal to our favorite Libyan dictator.  It would be very tragic accident if someone dropped a cruise missile or bomb in the wrong spot and unintentionally killed the poor man.



Good. Its about time the Europeans stopped asking the US to hold its hands in military operations. Not only that, this war is officially off our laps if it goes south. For everyone's sake, this better end fast and Gaddafi better be dead at the end.


----------



## Ceria (Mar 20, 2011)

Why does the UN think that sanctions have any real consequences? 

Oh no, not sanctions, it's like they're blowing smoke up their own asses.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 20, 2011)

Now here's a question...does Ghadaffi himself constitute a center of military leadership with command & control capabilities?  I contend that he does.  Therefore he is a valid target.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 20, 2011)

Really I think the US should wash their hands of the whole situation and just not help. It's what the world apparently wants.


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 20, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Really I think the US should wash their hands of the whole situation and just not help. It's what the world apparently wants.



True enough, which is why the US handing over the military leadership to the Europeans is a good thing.


----------



## Mael (Mar 20, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Really I think the US should wash their hands of the whole situation and just not help. It's what the world apparently wants.



Yet these lazy sods will come crawling back to us for some sort of feel-good measure.

Catch-22.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 20, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Now here's a question...does Ghadaffi himself constitute a center of military leadership with command & control capabilities?  I contend that he does.  Therefore he is a valid target.



The heads of state and government are always valid targets in a war.  And Hcheng Neither the UK or France asked for the US to take over or get involved.  It was always to the UN they went and would have done this with or without US involvement.  

It's not that we don't want the US help.  Its more we don't want your help in a different capacity to any other nation that is involved instead of this whole "holding hands" bs.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 20, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> The heads of state and government are always valid targets in a war.  And Hcheng Neither the UK or France asked for the US to take over or get involved.  It was always to the UN they went and would have done this with or without US involvement.
> 
> It's not that we don't want the US help.  Its more we don't want your help in a different capacity to any other nation that is involved instead of this whole "holding hands" bs.



Actually according to official sources, last week the UK wasn't going to go through with it because the US wasn't on board, and if the french were the only ones on board they wouldn't have been the one to do it. 

Obama was "hesitantly" cajoled into doing it at the last second because of the UN security council's vote, which bolstered the UK and the French 

Long story short, it never would have happened if the US had not gotten on board. The US would never have lifted a finger to help those rebels if the UK and the French had not tried to ease it by going to the UN to seek legitimacy, and they would never have done it on their own if the US didn't have their back


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 20, 2011)




----------



## T4R0K (Mar 20, 2011)

Mega, you silly ! :rofl

"Le let's do dis !!!'


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 20, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> The heads of state and government are always valid targets in a war.  And Hcheng Neither the UK or France asked for the US to take over or get involved.  It was always to the UN they went and would have done this with or without US involvement.
> 
> It's not that we don't want the US help.  Its more we don't want your help in a different capacity to any other nation that is involved instead of this whole "holding hands" bs.


With the exception of England most of you need your hand held.


----------



## Mael (Mar 21, 2011)

China keeps that silly prop machine running:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/21/us-china-libya-idUSTRE72K0LX20110321

Yet...they could've vetoed this.  They didn't.  What Johnny-Come-Latelies to the party, eh?



> "The military attacks on Libya are, following on the Afghan and Iraq wars, the third time that some countries have launched armed action against sovereign countries," it said in a reference to the United States and its allies.



Authorized by the UN lol. 

Honestly, the complainers are either lazy whiners who couldn't stomach what they demanded or just want another reason to bitch at the West to cover up their own problems.  I'm a little appalled by the outright cowardice of the Arab League and of China.  China of course wants that harmonious bullshit while cozying up those people.  Not to say Western leaders didn't cozy up to Gaddafi but seriously, what GOOD reason did Beijing have to overturn this and what BETTER solution that didn't involve the slaughter of most of the rebels could they have proposed?


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 21, 2011)

Charlie Sheen was pretty important though.


----------



## Mael (Mar 21, 2011)

The hypocrisy behind Libya is astounding.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 21, 2011)

Mael said:


> The hypocrisy behind Libya is astounding.



That reminds me:



> Feb. 23
> 
> 3.59pm: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose security forces crushed protests against him in 2009, condemned state brutality against protesters in Libya. He said on Wednesday:
> 
> "How can a leader subject his own people to a shower of machine-guns, tanks and bombs? How can a leader bomb his own people, and afterwards say 'I will kill anyone who says anything?"


----------



## -Dargor- (Mar 21, 2011)

Kagekatsu said:


> Feb. 23
> 
> 3.59pm: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose security forces crushed protests against him in 2009, condemned state brutality against protesters in Libya. He said on Wednesday:
> 
> "How can a leader subject his own people to a shower of machine-guns, tanks and bombs? How can a leader bomb his own people, and afterwards say 'I will kill anyone who says anything?"


 oh silly middle east


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 21, 2011)

Yeah no one is shocked when Iran acts dumb.


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 21, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> The heads of state and government are always valid targets in a war.  And Hcheng Neither the UK or France asked for the US to take over or get involved.  It was always to the UN they went and would have done this with or without US involvement.
> 
> It's not that we don't want the US help.  Its more we don't want your help in a different capacity to any other nation that is involved instead of this whole "holding hands" bs.



Hahahaha, no. The idea that European countries would have the guts to get involved in any military escapade - in a competent and effective manner that is, sending 1000 troops to Congo as a window dressing conscience salving peacekeeping mission doesn't count - at this point in time without the US is pretty much close to nil. Only the US would be willing to go on ahead in war without UN approval, the Europeans pretty much never. Just look at the Balkans if you don't believe me, a dictator can commit genocide right in your doorstep and the Europeans are too paralyzed to act until the US takes the first step. Also, Inuhanyou describes it better than me.



Inuhanyou said:


> Actually according to official sources, last week the UK wasn't going to go through with it because the US wasn't on board, and if the french were the only ones on board they wouldn't have been the one to do it.
> 
> Obama was "hesitantly" cajoled into doing it at the last second because of the UN security council's vote, which bolstered the UK and the French
> 
> Long story short, it never would have happened if the US had not gotten on board. The US would never have lifted a finger to help those rebels if the UK and the French had not tried to ease it by going to the UN to seek legitimacy, and they would never have done it on their own if the US didn't have their back



Although I have to say, I do wonder what the Europeans will do if this war drags on or becomes a quagmire. The level of strategic thinking for how to resolve the conflict seems to be no better than that of Iraq.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 21, 2011)

I don't know why its suddenly okay to get involved in this, people bitch about Afghanistan and Iraq, but those places are worse in some ways.


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 21, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't know why its suddenly okay to get involved in this, people bitch about Afghanistan and Iraq, but those places are worse in some ways.



Wars tend to be popular in the beginning, whereas the glamor has worn off of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, we are helping the "people" - ie the rebels - stick it to the "man" - Gaddafi. And the current dogma is that having the people start the rebellion is the hidden X Factor that leads to good old democracy. Whether or not that will turn out to be the case in reality is yet to be seen.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 21, 2011)

The one who are paralyzed was Italy, Spain, Germany and other. Now most of them join the fight......
We were on this shit since the beginning.


----------



## pikachuwei (Mar 21, 2011)

so i heard they hit Gadafi's compound


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 21, 2011)

I wish we would just drop Agent Orange all over the land. Purifying it from the degenerates that live there. And make it a parking lot.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 21, 2011)

They destroyed one of his command centres but not Gaddafi's compound. He's not officially a target as of yet.

Edit: Sorry, Pika was right.


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 21, 2011)

Hand Banana said:


> I wish we would just drop Agent Orange all over the land. Purifying it from the degenerates that live there. And make it a parking lot.



I prefer nuclear weapons cause then we could turn it into a glass parking lot!


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 21, 2011)

What the rebels are doing ??? Our mission is supposed to protect the civilians but also to help the rebels. They said, they need air protection, now they have it.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 21, 2011)

Wasting your time. Blow their asses up and move on.


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 21, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> What the rebels are doing ??? Our mission is supposed to protect the civilians but also to help the rebels. They said, they need air protection, now they have it.



Sounds like they are doing what every middle eastern nation does. Waits for the west to do everything so they can complain about it later and join Al Qaeda.


----------



## Adagio (Mar 21, 2011)

At least those military bases all over Europe are put to good use.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 21, 2011)

> Near Benghazi -- the heart of the Libyan opposition forces -- coalition forces pounded a Libyan military convoy. *At least 70 vehicles -- including armored personnel carriers and tanks -- were destroyed in eastern Libya.*



That's not a no fly zone.  That's a "Beating yo' ass zone."

The  this saying



> ...coalition aircraft launched attacks on loyalist ground forces about 10 miles south of Benghazi. U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps strike aircraft, along with warplanes from France and the United Kingdom, participated in the attacks. According to a Pentagon briefing, the targets included armor, rocket launchers and mechanized infantry.



I think we're probably looking at the end of Ghadaffi's military as a coherent fighting force before this is all over.  Although he could adopt partisan asymmetric tactics, such a move just doesn't work when your enemies aren't on the ground


----------



## Lucifeller (Mar 21, 2011)

I'd like to point out that this whole 'siding with the rebels' mess has a very high likelihood of coming back to bite the West in the ass.

Gheddafi is a tyrant, yes. He also has no sympathy whatsoever for Al Qaeda and its cause (yes, there are Lybian terrorists, but they are unaffiliated to Al Qaeda, they do their own thing), and explicitly kept them out for fear they'd mess up his dictatoring.

With him gone, poof, instant power vacuum. Guess who will step in to fill it? (saying 'good, nice, trustworthy people' is the WRONG answer, by the way)

My money's on the next Lybian government going the way post-Russia Afghanistan did - y'know, when the US supported the Taliban rebels against the big scary Commies.

We all know how well THAT went... so I can't help but feel history will just repeat itself. I'd rather keep a dictator who gives Al Qaeda the middle finger than have a bunch of easily corrupted politicians who are likely to look the other way.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 21, 2011)

Lucifeller said:


> I'd like to point out that this whole 'siding with the rebels' mess has a very high likelihood of coming back to bite the West in the ass.
> 
> Gheddafi is a tyrant, yes. He also has no sympathy whatsoever for Al Qaeda and its cause (yes, there are Lybian terrorists, but they are unaffiliated to Al Qaeda, they do their own thing), and explicitly kept them out for fear they'd mess up his dictatoring.



Al Qaeda is not the concern here and it's irrational to be shitting your pants at the mention of them as such fear mongering only makes.

You're absolutely wrong in every way that matters about Ghadaffi not liking to use asymmetric warfare for political gain.

Muammar Ghadaffi has a demonstrated history of  when provoked.  See also,.

Eliminating him in the here, the now, and forever is the socially responsible and correct thing to do given his past actions.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 21, 2011)

Some reports claim that Khamis, son of Gaddafi and head of an elite army unit died in Sundays bombing. Not confirmed though


----------



## Adagio (Mar 21, 2011)

Are the reports about smoke coming from Gaddafi's residence true?


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 21, 2011)

Adagio said:


> Are the reports about smoke coming from Gaddafi's residence true?



Yes, but only from one of the buildings in his compound


----------



## Karsh (Mar 21, 2011)

Has anybody been reporting to any noticeable degree about how Mugabe is roflstomping everyone, including students (19 of february) to keep HIS dictatorship and torrorizing his people to keep them thoroughly castrated under his rule?

I mention this because it is very obvious how only certain places receive any attention even if there are plenty of others in desperate need of that same attention.


----------



## Lucifeller (Mar 21, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Al Qaeda is not the concern here and it's irrational to be shitting your pants at the mention of them as such fear mongering only makes.
> 
> You're absolutely wrong in every way that matters about Ghadaffi not liking to use asymmetric warfare for political gain.
> 
> ...



I never said I'm shitting my pants, and I never said Gheddafi doesn't employ terrorist methods. What I said, which you'd have noticed if you read my whole message, is that I'd rather deal with him than with Al Qaeda affiliates, because Al Qaeda's methods are worse and they are more widespread. Not to mention they have gotten a lot subtler.

In short, I'm choosing the evil I know and can see in broad daylight over the snake in the grass that might or might not be poisonous (but more likely is, and a bite sucks either way). There's a difference.

Also, I don't want to hear anything about 'socially responsible'. As far as I'm concerned, the moment anyone chooses to solve their problems by force they cease to be on the side of righteousness and go back to being barbarians for whom 'I'm bigger and badder so my word is law' is the only rule. There's no 'right' side at the moment, only varying degrees of wrong.

Because frankly, five on one, and with a small-ass nation like Lybia which is already in a civil war? That's not what someone who seeks justice does, that's what a bunch of bullies does, ganging up on a single opponent that's smaller than them to boot.

Granted, I sorta expect them from France and from my own government (Italy), since the French are sorta infamous for that whole bandwagoning thing and Italy is led by an inept five-feet-tall senile perverted dumbass who's on trial for underage prostitution (no, I don't much like my own government, was I too obvious?) and a bunch of old fossils who can't even do the sensible thing and send said p*d*p**** dwarf packing, but not from the Brits (who usually have more common sense than this) and the Danish.

And I no longer have expectations for the US since they seem to get on the case of anybody they don't like, which is basically anyone who doesn't kiss their feet.

Also, one of my chief concerns is how much the rebels are lying about their motives. Because rest assured, they ARE lying somewhere along the line - it's not a matter of IF, but of HOW MUCH - and I have yet to see a rebel movement that's completely honest about their motives and goals.

I'm just hoping we aren't helping people worse than Gheddafi take over... because that'd be a nasty karmic bitchslap from Fate, and Fate is certainly a fickle enough goddess to do that sort of thing. Afghanistan and the Taliban that took over after the US helped them (just to spite Russia, I might add - that certainly didn't work out well) can attest to that.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 21, 2011)

pikachuwei said:


> so i heard they hit Gadafi's compound





Rob said:


> They destroyed one of his command centres but not Gaddafi's compound. He's not officially a target as of yet.



Excuse me, Pika was right.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 21, 2011)

> "The resolution is defective and flawed," he told workers at a Russian ballistic missile factory. *"It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades*."



Quote from Putin, rofl


----------



## Toby (Mar 21, 2011)

To answer hcheng02's questions, I believe that the EU position on Libya is the same as they expressed regarding Tunisia and Egypt. The EU is more than willing to sit by and watch from a distance and, I imagine, strike from a distance too. But getting involved is not the EU way. The EU is a massive business conglomerate above all else. On the flipside, the European countries assisting this operation provide justification for the continued existence of NATO. 

Besides, at this point even European countries can carry out the bombing strikes if necessary. Not nearly as efficiently as the US, but then most of the targets they wanted to hit are already done for. The question is what kind of assistance the West will provide when the US hands over command. I doubt we'll see much. What I do see is a global love-affair with neoliberalism though. Whenever dictatorships buckle under popular pressure, liberalism tends to make a massive comeback.


----------



## Mael (Mar 21, 2011)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/21/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110321

This has gotten hilarious. 



> "The resolution is defective and flawed," said Russia's Putin, *whose country did not use its power to veto the resolution at the United Nations*. "It allows everything. It resembles mediaeval calls for crusades," Putin added.
> 
> China's official newspapers on Monday stepped up Beijing's opposition to air attacks on Libya, accusing nations backing the strikes of breaking international rules and courting new turmoil in the Middle East. *China also did not veto the U.N. resolution*.



Has everyone lost their fucking minds?



> Libyan rebels welcomed the second wave of attacks.
> 
> "The committee rejects foreign troops on the ground but we encourage the bombardment of Gaddafi's army," Ahmed El-Hasi, a spokesman for the February 17 opposition coalition, said in the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi where the uprising began.



Apparently not.


----------



## zuul (Mar 21, 2011)

Putin and China are  trolls. 

I don't know if it is going to work since the people concerned aka the Lybians are supporting the bombing.


----------



## stream (Mar 21, 2011)

I guess this is part of the reason the countries in the coalition waited so much. They knew that as soon as they acted, others would start bitching about it.

It still would have been better if they had acted, say one week before. Now, it is less clear that the rebels  can win without heavy air support (which might be translated as: the coalition does all the fighting and lets the rebels take over).


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 21, 2011)

The French are coming.


Anyway, Russia and China are just looking for cheap PR points, much like the Arabs. They would have probably criticized the West had they not intervened.


----------



## Talon. (Mar 21, 2011)

zuul said:


> Putin and China are  trolls.



DUH 

ill just leave this here

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBY-0n4esNY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 21, 2011)

stream said:


> I guess this is part of the reason the countries in the coalition waited so much. They knew that as soon as they acted, others would start bitching about it.
> 
> It still would have been better if they had acted, say one week before. Now, it is less clear that the rebels  can win without heavy air support (which might be translated as: the coalition does all the fighting and lets the rebels take over).



On the other hand, initially the rebels probably would not have been as enthusiastic about accepting help since they naively thought that they didn't need it. They thought their enthusiasm was all that was needed to win and that letting the West help would soil their revolutionary credentials. To a degree they still do, but its much less so ever since it was shown that Gaddafi was kicking their ass and was only a few days from slaughtering them all.


----------



## Dionysus (Mar 21, 2011)

Evidently the Turks are blocking a leadership transition to NATO.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 21, 2011)

The Turks are blocking everything these days. Not a surprise. Erdogan has been trying to quietly help Mumu at every turn.


----------



## diamond jozu (Mar 21, 2011)

*please send this everywhere*

i need to do a campaign on facebook and twitter, problem being i dont have twitter. I need the word to spread around quickly.

1. There have been no civiallian deaths from the air raids performed in the odyssey dawn.
2. The funerals do not have nearly enugh people to be the families of 46 dead people.
3. Those dead people are the same as those kidnapped from the hospitals earlier.
4. The video with the "doctor" pumping the airbag into the patients lung is illegal without cpr performed at the same time.
5. Gaddaffi is bombing both zentan and Misrata as we speak.
6. There are brigades belonging to gaddafi that are circling around Zintan form the south.

Please spread this, make it into a campaign, tell it to all news networks 
thank you


----------



## Kazekage Gaara (Mar 21, 2011)

in b4 lock


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 21, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> The Turks are blocking everything these days. Not a surprise. Erdogan has been trying to quietly help Mumu at every turn.



Why does Erdrogan want to help Gaddafi anyway?


----------



## stream (Mar 21, 2011)

WTF?? Who creates an account for such a useless message?

I smell a troll.


----------



## Little Washu (Mar 21, 2011)

Somebody is spreading pro American propaganda.

In b4 lock and ban


----------



## diamond jozu (Mar 21, 2011)

ARE YOU GUYS FUCKING SERIOUS
I AM IN LIBYA RIGHT NOW AND THE NEWS IS FUCKING EVERYTHING UP. I HAVE ALREADY SENT THIS TO CNN BUT I NEED EVERYBODY TO PARTICIPATE, 
PLEASE PEOPLE HELP ME.
if anybody knows im also , bartholemew kuma in the apforums, please hep me

The group now made in facebook: Help spread the word of libya


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 21, 2011)

hcheng02 said:


> Why does Erdrogan want to help Gaddafi anyway?



As is with much of Erdogans foreign policy its motivated by personal convictions and ideology. He likes Gaddaffi as a Islamic, Anti-Israeli, Anti-Colonial, and "Third World" ruler, which appeals to Erdogan very much. It's much like the reasons he likes Assad and Bashir. Erdogan has also been given heaps of praise from Mumu, including receiving the "Gaddaffi prize of Human Rights" last year due to his Israel policy, a prize Erodgan has refused to give up. Considering the man basically cried over Cast Lead at a world economic summit and has been shown to be highly emotional, I think looking at personal reasons behind his foreign policy is important.

There's also that Erdogan is trying to fashion Turkey as the new defender of the Muslim world from Zionist-Imperialist plotting and aggression, and he is trying to shift Turkish foreign policy away from the West/Europe and towards the greater Muslim world. Guys like Gaddaffi were important partners for this new Turkish policy, as Gaddaffi despite his lunacy was one of the most important Muslim diplomats worldwide. The African Union loved the guy, calling him The King of Kings of Africa at one point. He was among the most influential leaders in the UN's General Assembly/Human Rights Council.

Lastly, Mumu is a Muslim, which has been demonstrated as enough to earn Erdogans support n the past. Keep in mind that he justified inviting Sudanese President Omar al Bashir to Ankara in the past (despite the genocide rulings of the world court, Interpol warrant, etc.) by stating that since Bashir was Muslim, he is not capable of genocide and thus international law was wrong.

Erdogan has been playing a more careful game here however, he has openly thrown his support behind nuts like Bashir/Ahmadinejad/Assad and Hamas/Hezbollah because its popular or non-damaging on the Muslim street to do so. Mumu is a different story, he's not very popular on the Arab street anymore. So he has been saying things such as Turkish support for a no-fly zone, when in reality they have acted against not only Resolution 1973 but also Resolution 1970 which was just a set of basic measures against Gaddaffi. This is achieving his foreign policy aims while also making it seem like he's no Hugo Chavez in terms of Mumu support to the Arab street.


----------



## Little Washu (Mar 21, 2011)

diamond jozu said:


> ARE YOU GUYS FUCKING SERIOUS
> I AM IN LIBYA RIGHT NOW AND THE NEWS IS FUCKING EVERYTHING UP. I HAVE ALREADY SENT THIS TO CNN BUT I NEED EVERYBODY TO PARTICIPATE,
> PLEASE PEOPLE HELP ME.
> if anybody knows im also , bartholemew kuma in the apforums, please hep me


I retract my statement then.  You should have said that you were Libyian in the first post.  Good luck then.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 21, 2011)

diamond jozu said:


> ARE YOU GUYS FUCKING SERIOUS
> I AM IN LIBYA RIGHT NOW AND THE NEWS IS FUCKING EVERYTHING UP. I HAVE ALREADY SENT THIS TO CNN BUT I NEED EVERYBODY TO PARTICIPATE,
> PLEASE PEOPLE HELP ME.
> if anybody knows im also , bartholemew kuma in the apforums, please hep me
> ...



Erm.. I rather not. Just move to America bro.


----------



## diamond jozu (Mar 21, 2011)

how the fuck can i do that right now, my country needs me and i a mone of the few fluent english arabic translators here not working for gaddafi


----------



## Mexican God Lvl 3 (Mar 21, 2011)

You know, this could be legit 

 but Im American so I dont curr.


----------



## Garfield (Mar 21, 2011)

What is the name of your facebook group?


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 21, 2011)

diamond jozu said:


> how the fuck can i do that right now, my country needs me and i a mone of the few fluent english arabic translators here not working for gaddafi



Don't you guys use magic carpets or something like that?


----------



## Jarl lKarl (Mar 21, 2011)

diamond jozu said:


> how the fuck can i do that right now, my country needs me and i a mone of the few fluent english arabic translators here not working for gaddafi



Really sorry to tell you this (in the event that you're telling the truth) but without a way to verify your claims I (and basically everyone else) will be reluctant to comply with your instructions. You have to understand, we stand to do more harm than good by spreading false information. Also given the situation/context troll alarms are going off all over the place so maybe you want to, you know, cool ya' jets and such.

Again, conditional on your story being true, the best of luck to you, and I'd be happy to help you out if I can get some kind of verification. Perhaps a link to the facebook group would help?


----------



## Karsh (Mar 21, 2011)

We can't do anything without having at least a plausible referance and someone posting on a forum like this won't be taken seriously as one...

Why can't you make your own twitter account?
You're in Libya so you're your own witness to the communication medium and if that is how things are there then send your information to all networks (under tips or whatever) and maybe it's good if you're able to call them and talk to them personally, maybe take screencaps and photographs, vids etcc.
Otherwise, again, no one here can do anything without proof and just your word for it.

Sorry :/


----------



## stream (Mar 21, 2011)

Why post this in a random forum about manga, then?

Especially, why come back and see if people taking it seriously? You should just be posting to as many forums as possible, way more efficient.

I would advise just writing in the comments section of the New York Times. It is a web site that is actually related to news... Unlike this web site, which is essentially related to lulz.


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 21, 2011)

You picked the worst forums to start spreading this message. I would of sent it out to a more reputable source such as a major world news network.

You'll only get tools and trolls here so you mine as well look elsewhere for help.


----------



## diamond jozu (Mar 21, 2011)

People in manga forums spend alot of time on the internet, spreading this will be quite fast, then the media will pick up on the news. 
power with numbers


----------



## Xyloxi (Mar 21, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> The Turks are blocking everything these days. Not a surprise. Erdogan has been trying to quietly help Mumu at every turn.



Don't they still want to join the EU or something? If so they're not exactly going the right way about it.


----------



## Jarl lKarl (Mar 21, 2011)

Dude's facebook says Benghazi; also indicates an unhealthy obsession with One Piece, so maybe he comes here a lot or something, accounting for his posting this here. If he is a troll he is an abnormally determined troll?


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 21, 2011)

diamond jozu said:


> People in manga forums spend alot of time on the internet, spreading this will be quite fast, then the media will pick up on the news.
> power with numbers



Does Gaddafi know about this site? I feel like as an American, it would be my duty to alert him of such.


----------



## Jarl lKarl (Mar 21, 2011)

Hand Banana said:


> Does Gaddafi know about this site? I feel like as an American, it would be my duty to alert him of such.



If he does we are in so much trouble.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 21, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> Don't they still want to join the EU or something? If so they're not exactly going the right way about it.



I live in a country that is in the EU, half of it is occupied by Turkey and that half is suppsoed to be a part of the EU, and Turkey does not recognize us. The Turkish Cypriots made a mini revolt in the occupied by the Turkish army northern Cyprus and Erdogan as the dictator he is told them to fuck off.To answer your question, NO they don't particularly care of entering in the EU right now but their EU admission is not going to be killed either. They have big allies for that to happen and big economic interests have their sights on Turkey. One of those allies is Britain who are traditionally pushing in favor of Turkey in the EU. As are the Americans.  The French are less enthusiastic for the Turks.

Anyway they are very arrogant as far as their EU admission and foreign policy goes and yet it has yet to significantly cost them. On the contrary. Hopefully Erdogan's foolishness costs him some alliances but I am not confident about that. Their arrogance is among others a sign of how Turkey sees it self as a big regional power, and they are indeed that.  Other powers can not afford to lose Turkey completely even if they have a leader who acts idiotically.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 21, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> Don't they still want to join the EU or something? If so they're not exactly going the right way about it.



Some do some don't.

Most think EU is bullying them though for making them do right things like Recognizing the genocides their ancestors did (In turkey it is actually illegal to even contemplate them happening) and GTFO of northern cyprus and take the colonists with them.  Thereby allowing those that have lost land to return to their homes.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 21, 2011)

I remember hearing Erdogan saying that he doesn't particularly care about entering the EU and he won't sacrifice national interests for that.  That being said they won't stop trying to enter the EU but they are not willing to do many sacrifices for it, especially in issues that have to do with their national interests.


----------



## Toby (Mar 21, 2011)

There is another group called Help the People of Libya. The group corroborates the story of what this guy is saying. According to the group's news-tweets, Gaddafi moved dead bodies to the area where the Coalition force struck Gaddafi's defenses in order to make it look like civilians were hit.

I am merging this with the other Libyan news thread. Don't worry, AP is on this.


----------



## Jarl lKarl (Mar 21, 2011)

Barrel said:


> There is another group called Help the People of Libya. The group corroborates the story of what this guy is saying. According to the group's news-tweets, Gaddafi moved dead bodies to the area where the Coalition force struck Gaddafi's defenses in order to make it look like civilians were hit.
> 
> I am merging this with the other Libyan news thread. Don't worry, AP is on this.



links bitte?


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 21, 2011)

Barrel said:


> There is another group called Help the People of Libya. The group corroborates the story of what this guy is saying. According to the group's news-tweets, Gaddafi moved dead bodies to the area where the Coalition force struck Gaddafi's defenses in order to make it look like civilians were hit.
> 
> I am merging this with the other Libyan news thread. Don't worry, AP is on this.



Oh, so he was telling the truth. Opps.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 21, 2011)

Lucifeller said:


> Also, I don't want to hear anything about 'socially responsible'. As far as I'm concerned, the moment anyone chooses to solve their problems by force they cease to be on the side of righteousness and go back to being barbarians for whom 'I'm bigger and badder so my word is law' is the only rule. There's no 'right' side at the moment, only varying degrees of wrong.
> 
> Because frankly, five on one, and with a small-ass nation like Lybia which is already in a civil war? That's not what someone who seeks justice does, that's what a bunch of bullies does, ganging up on a single opponent that's smaller than them to boot.



You seem to be under the impression that war is supposed to be fair. Allow me to correct you: it is not. The entirety of war strategy and tactics can be summed up as _being as unfair to the other side as humanly possible_.

Equally-matched sides does not constitute a war. It constitutes mutual suicide.

And honestly, violence IS a solution. Is it always the right one? No. But to say it is NEVER a solution is quite frankly naivete of the worst degree. There will always exist a point at which diplomacy fails.


----------



## Lucifeller (Mar 21, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> You seem to be under the impression that war is supposed to be fair. Allow me to correct you: it is not. The entirety of war strategy and tactics can be summed up as _being as unfair to the other side as humanly possible_.
> 
> Equally-matched sides does not constitute a war. It constitutes mutual suicide.
> 
> And honestly, violence IS a solution. Is it always the right one? No. But to say it is NEVER a solution is quite frankly naivete of the worst degree. There will always exist a point at which diplomacy fails.



Where did I say I think war is supposed to be fair? I said that GANGING UP ON SOMEONE gives one no right to claim they are doing the 'right' thing. If your only solution is to bully the other guy into submission with brute force, you've already lost, because you lowered yourself to the standard of a mere savage.

There are no winners in war. And arguably, those who win on the field of battle lose more than those who are slaughtered. They lose their superiority to mere beasts and bring themselves on their same level. Losers merely lose their lives.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 21, 2011)

In fact, there is not a clear leadership in these operation. The US just coordinate but each nation involved have the leadership on their own mission. It's different from a classic coalition war when there is a US leadership that just take foreign forces and tell them what to do.

France: Operation Harmattan 
UK: Operation Ellamy
US: Operation Odyssey down


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 21, 2011)

Yeah, basically beyond notifying the UN bloke, everyone is free to just do as they like. Within the bounds of the resolution.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 21, 2011)

Lucifeller said:


> Where did I say I think war is supposed to be fair? I said that GANGING UP ON SOMEONE gives one no right to claim they are doing the 'right' thing. If your only solution is to bully the other guy into submission with brute force, you've already lost, because you lowered yourself to the standard of a mere savage.
> 
> There are no winners in war. And arguably, those who win on the field of battle lose more than those who are slaughtered. They lose their superiority to mere beasts and bring themselves on their same level. Losers merely lose their lives.



When a mad man has a knife to the throat of a child, I don't care if 10 men restrain him. I don't give a shit if you consider that "ganging up on him" at no point would I ever give sympathy that a criminal is not on equal footing as justice. 

In fact I would spend my entire life campaign for the just outnumber and outweigh the unjust in all facets of this world. That you seek to support the criminal and madmen in this world to make them stronger, to give them more power in their opposition to the innocent and just is only telling of the naive and juvenile nature of your opinion.


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 21, 2011)

Lucifeller said:


> Where did I say I think war is supposed to be fair? I said that GANGING UP ON SOMEONE gives one no right to claim they are doing the 'right' thing. If your only solution is to bully the other guy into submission with brute force, you've already lost, because you lowered yourself to the standard of a mere savage.
> 
> There are no winners in war. And arguably, those who win on the field of battle lose more than those who are slaughtered. They lose their superiority to mere beasts and bring themselves on their same level. Losers merely lose their lives.



if U.S (or France or UK or or) walked in alone to help-out, you will be okay with that ?


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 21, 2011)

Rob said:


> Yeah, basically beyond notifying the UN bloke, everyone is free to just do as they like. Within the bounds of the resolution.



I really like the split up command structure in this situation, it introduces a degree of uncertainty to Ghaddafi and his forces.  Uncertainty is the beginning of all fears.  It also removes the propaganda ability to focus overall hatred on a single enforcer.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 21, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> I really like the split up command structure in this situation, it introduces a degree of uncertainty to Ghaddafi and his forces.  Uncertainty is the beginning of all fears.  *It also removes the propaganda ability to focus overall hatred on a single enforcer*.



You seem to forget that they can be summed up as "western imperialists", which they truly are .


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> You seem to forget that they can be summed up as "western imperialists", *which they truly are* .



which ones (imperialists) you prefer though ?

western ? middle-eastern ? eastern ?...etc.

the wise-asses say that there is no good and evil as in "everything is just a perspective" but IMO it's closer to everything being just a preferable craving taste.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 21, 2011)

I prefer none


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 21, 2011)

Yeah, its oh so evil and imperialistic to support people overthrowing an oppressive dictator!</sarcasm>


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> You seem to forget that they can be summed up as "western imperialists", which they truly are



You're still going to have to spread all that lovely rage very thin to cover all the specific nations involved.

The more targeted and specific the hatred, the longer it lingers and the worse it is.  Western Imperialists is too general and vague to give the concept much of a breeding ground.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 21, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Yeah, its oh so evil and imperialistic to support people overthrowing an oppressive dictator!</sarcasm>



It is imperialistic to meddle in other countries affairs(See War in Iraq).



The Space Cowboy said:


> You're still going to have to spread all that lovely rage very thin to cover all the specific nations involved.
> 
> The more targeted and specific the hatred, the longer it lingers and the worse it is.  Western Imperialists is too general and vague to give the concept much of a breeding ground.



You're giving Gaddafi followers way too much credit.


----------



## Sferr (Mar 21, 2011)

So, if NATO tells us to go in Lybia we will obey like little doggies and send our troops(lol) there too. Man, I hate my buttlicking government. Like we don't have enough problems here, in Latvia


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> I prefer none



in an ideal world perhaps, we wouldn't need to chose.

we are not living in an ideal world.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> It is imperialistic to meddle in other countries affairs(See War in Iraq).


Notice how the US has _pulled out of Iraq_? Not only that, the Rebels _requested our help_ and Gaddafi was committing humans rights crimes left and right and threatening everyone in the region.

Sorry, its not imperialism.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 21, 2011)

This aint an impeachable offense kucinich  go sue somebody over a olive pit in your mouth again


----------



## Lucifeller (Mar 21, 2011)

butcher50 said:


> if U.S (or France or UK or or) walked in alone to help-out, you will be okay with that ?



Of course I would - my problem is that any of those nations is perfectly capable of curb-stomping Lybia alone, why the fuck the need to gang up? Hmm? This whole poeration is like saying Andre The Giant, Hulk Hogan and Undertaker in their prime need to gang up to take out a 70lbs pencil necked geek who barely knows how to throw a halfassed punch. 

It doesn't make you look like a just and mighty savior, it just makes you look like a goddamn bully. I don't care what the other guy did, if one man is enough to roflstomp him, overkill in the form of ganging up will have the opposite effect and make you look like the one trolling him.

That's my beef with this 'operation'.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 21, 2011)

A country like France or even the UK, couldn't apply a no fly zone alone.


----------



## Lucifeller (Mar 21, 2011)

Against a nation in the throes of civil war like Lybia, hell yes they could. Hell the Brits did it to their own land and a chunk of the sea during WWI when their aviation was pretty shit compared to today. If they could do it back then they can now.

Additionally, if you can't do it alone, then maybe you should just stay out of the freaking mess and not get involved. Just saying...


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 21, 2011)

butcher50 said:


> in an ideal world perhaps, we wouldn't need to chose.
> 
> we are not living in an ideal world.



You don't need an ideal world to reject the notion of imperialism. Though I'm pretty sure an imperialist like you wouldn't understand.



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Notice how the US has _pulled out of Iraq_? Not only that, the Rebels _requested our help_ and Gaddafi was committing humans rights crimes left and right and threatening everyone in the region.
> 
> Sorry, its not imperialism.



It's imperialism, end of story.


----------



## Sabotage (Mar 21, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> *Notice how the US has pulled out of Iraq?* Not only that, the Rebels _requested our help_ and Gaddafi was committing humans rights crimes left and right and threatening everyone in the region.
> 
> Sorry, its not imperialism.



This is wrong. There are still US troops in Iraq.






Le M?le Dominant said:


> A country like France or even the UK, couldn't apply a no fly zone alone.



Actually any of those countries could effectively patrol Libya's air space alone. Doesn't hurt to have other players though.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> It's imperialism, end of story.


No, it isn't. You have a very narrow view on this. Imperialism implies we're taking over the country from its citizens. Except here we're helping the Rebels overthrow a dictator whose committed human rights abuses and attacked his own people. 

We wouldn't have intervened if the Rebels could do it on their own or if Gadaffi resigned on his own.


roguezan said:


> This is wrong. There are still US troops in Iraq.


In an advisory role. They're basically all pulled out now.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 21, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> No, it isn't. You have a very narrow view on this. Imperialism implies we're taking over the country from its citizens. Except here we're helping the Rebels overthrow a dictator whose committed human rights abuses and attacked his own people.
> 
> We wouldn't have intervened if the Rebels could do it on their own or if Gadaffi resigned on his own.



Unless, they don't want to fit the profile you give them and hence invade again to give them your values, like Afghanistan.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Unless, they don't want to fit the profile you give them and hence invade again to give them your values, like Afghanistan.


Given how Afghanistan's Taliban refused to give up Al Queda attacked us on September 11th, killing over 3000 people, invading Afghanistan was a right course of action. 

You just want people to turn the other cheek and let evil people roam around unpunished don't you?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 21, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> You just want people to turn the other cheek and let evil people roam around unpunished don't you?



Evil ? 

You dare call other people fighting for freedom of their nation evil after what you have done with South America ? 
All this talk about helping  rebels is bullshit. You have put down and helped put down "freedom fighters" in other nations because they didn't fit your interests. The only reason you're helping now is Oil. Don't try to bullshit people.


----------



## Sabotage (Mar 21, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> In an advisory role. They're basically all pulled out now.



Read the article. They can still conduct raids alongside Iraqi security forces. 



> The Army selected brigade combat teams as the unit upon which to build advisory brigades partly because they would be able to* retain their inherent capability to conduct offensive and defensive operations*, according to the Army’s security force assistance field manual, which came out in May 2009. This way, the brigade can shift the bulk of its operational focus from security force assistance to combat operations if necessary.



Even then, too withdraw from a country would mean all foreign troops are gone. This is not the case.

So yes, you are wrong.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 21, 2011)

Lucifeller said:


> Against a nation in the throes of civil war like Lybia, hell yes they could. Hell the Brits did it to their own land and a chunk of the sea during WWI when their aviation was pretty shit compared to today. If they could do it back then they can now.
> 
> Additionally, if you can't do it alone, then maybe you should just stay out of the freaking mess and not get involved. Just saying...



You compare the british aviation in WWI with the modern British aviation. It's very different. Our armies are not made to work alone. Especially the British one who are member of NATO. They can't deal with a no fly zone alone. Don't underestimate the size of Libya. Maybe France and UK together but people like Mega would say it would be difficult.

If you can't go alone, then go with allies that share the same opinion on the situation there.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Evil ?
> 
> You dare call other people fighting for freedom of their nation evil after what you have done with South America ?
> All this talk about helping  rebels is bullshit. You have put down and helped put down "freedom fighters" in other nations because they didn't fit your interests. The only reason you're helping now is Oil. Don't try to bullshit people.


Elim, you are full of crap. Yes, we are helping the rebels in Libya since Gadaffi has violated his actions as a ruler. 

Something tells me you hate the US and the West and whenever they make a move you'd scream 'Imperialism', 'You're only after Oil'!


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 21, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Elim, you are full of crap. Yes, we are helping the rebels in Libya since Gadaffi has violated his actions as a ruler.



Bull fucking shit. Where are your troops in Yemen ? Where were you troops going against Pinochet ? Oh wait, you installed that particular dictator.



> Something tells me you hate the US and the West and whenever they make a move you'd scream 'Imperialism', 'You're only after Oil'!



Something tells me you are noob who doesn't know what I stand for and prefers to make baseless assumptions.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 21, 2011)

However i have a question about the US/UK bombing. On Saturday, they launch 110 Tomahawks on Libya. It wasn't too much ???


----------



## Coteaz (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> It's imperialism, end of story.


Nothing wrong with a little imperialism, Dice. 

In fact, the world could use a whole lot more.


----------



## Adagio (Mar 21, 2011)

Lucifeller said:


> Of course I would - my problem is that any of those nations is perfectly capable of curb-stomping Lybia alone, why the fuck the need to gang up? Hmm?



A reason why many countries are cooperating on this is because its easier economically speaking if they all pitch in a moderate amount of forces. Considering that multiple EU bases are being used for this operation, it makes fuelling easier and faster logistics wise. 

Also, multiple countries have interests to see the current situation end.


----------



## Sabotage (Mar 21, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> However i have a question about the US/UK bombing. On Saturday, they launch 110 Tomahawks on Libya. It wasn't too much ???



There is no kill like overkill.


----------



## hyakku (Mar 21, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Elim, you are full of crap. Yes, we are helping the rebels in Libya since Gadaffi has violated his actions as a ruler.
> 
> Something tells me you hate the US and the West and whenever they make a move you'd scream 'Imperialism', 'You're only after Oil'!



Hold on, what are you trying to argue? I can understand if you don't like his view, but I'm American, and Im not biased enough to make the same erroneous claim you make that we are in it for the Libyan people and for democratic ideals.

Elim's proposition is correct, the us could've intervened in Yemen, sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe (RIGHT NOW), Rwanda, etc. So could Europe, what stopped them then? 

Liberal internationalists can wank themselves off all they like, there's no possibly way you can legitimately claim that the only concern in western powers minds are the people of Libya and their rights. it's just nonsensical considering that at least two of the dictatorships actively operating or recently toppled were instilled by the same people that claim they want to take these bad people out. You're a damned fool if you believe that. 

However, this is a separate issue of whether or not humanitarian intervention should be permissible or not, an issue I don't really care to get into now. But seriously, can we all just admit that libyan rights and freedoms were not the only (or likely even the primary) goals in western powers minds when they developed their stratagems. 

Apologies for typos, getting used to this new pads keyboard.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim Rawne, i disagree with you. I don't see what is done there as imperialism. Our countries don't have the right to invade this country. It's just limit the abilities of "the King of Africa" to "massacre" those who protest against his authority. He is not like Ben Ali, Moubarak or even Bouteflika.

Edit: Reason for Europe to do something there ? The events in North Africa have an impact on our countries. Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt are close to us. It's better to be active on these Arab revolutions and try our best to help them have peaceful democracies.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 21, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Elim Rawne, i disagree with you. I don't see what is done there as imperialism. Our countries don't have the right to invade this country. It's just limit the abilities of "the King of Africa" to "massacre" those who protest against his authority. He is not like Ben Ali, Moubarak or even Bouteflika.



It's not just to do that. If the intention was to limit the influence of dictators and help the rebels, why aren't any of the allies in Bahrein, Zimbabwe, Yemen or Sudan right now ?
It's only to exert more influence on an oil rich nation.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> It's not just to do that. If the intention was to limit the influence of dictators and help the rebels, why aren't any of the allies in Bahrein, Zimbabwe, Yemen or Sudan right now ?
> It's only to exert more influence on an oil rich nation.



Reason for Europe to do something there ? The events in North Africa have an impact on our countries. Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt are close to us. It's better to be active on these Arab revolutions and try our best to help them have peaceful democracies.


Edit: Now for the US, i don't know, they didn't really want to be involve in this.


----------



## Mael (Mar 21, 2011)

For the record, folks, Libya is responsible for I believe only single-digit world production of oil.

It isn't THAT important.  Speculation is what makes the shit go awry.

And Elim seems to be refining his trolling skills.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 21, 2011)

I don't hide the fact that our intervention there is also for our own interest. But oil is not our interest in this intervention. It's not good for us to have a *crazy* dictator like Gaddafi so close to us. This is why, back the rebel could be a good opportunity to remove him.


----------



## hyakku (Mar 21, 2011)

Mael said:


> For the record, folks, Libya is responsible for I believe only single-digit world production of oil.
> 
> It isn't THAT important.  Speculation is what makes the shit go awry.
> 
> And Elim seems to be refining his trolling skills.



Regardless, he's definitely correct in asserting that America doesn't really have a clear interest in this region, but somehow people are accepting of this but don't encourage intervention in far less places? What's worse is that some of the reasons going into Libya seem oddly reminiscent of bush (historical record of violence, abuse of people, etc. we're really just missing the whole wmds and terrorism thing)


----------



## Lucifeller (Mar 21, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Given how Afghanistan's Taliban refused to give up Al Queda attacked us on September 11th, killing over 3000 people, invading Afghanistan was a right course of action.
> 
> You just want people to turn the other cheek and let evil people roam around unpunished don't you?



I'd like to remind you that had the United States not decided to butt into Afghanistan during the Cold War and chose to help the Taliban just to give the Soviets a big fat middle finger, there wouldn't have BEEN a Taliban faction to give Al Qaeda shelter and a logistic HQ. 9/11 is also partially the US's fault for butting in on something they would have been better off washing their hands about. And it was pretty much solely to hose Russia.

Laser guided karma at its finest... I am sad for those who lost their lives, but being sad doesn't keep me from pointing out that it was partially because of a poor decision by the past government that the whole mess was made possible. So let's quit blaming ONLY the Taliban for the 9/11 mess. The objective lesson is 'don't get involved in other nations' shit unless it's absolutely positively necessary, and by necessary I don't mean economically convenient and/or a chance to give a nation you dislike a wedgie'.

Sorry for the brutal honesty, but I feel it must be said.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 21, 2011)

Really this is making the price go up and down on gas, if we were worried about just the prices we would have just let him murder the people so it would be done with faster.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 21, 2011)

Me father at the dinner table argues that Obama is waging an illegal war since he doesn't have Congressional approval for military action. And then went so far as to say he's indirectly aiding Al-Qaeda by supporting the revels.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 21, 2011)

Obama doesn't have to have congressional approval for this as he's not waging a "war" by definition  It was specifically defined as a no fly zone to protect the civilians that would otherwise have been killed by Gaddafi's advance into Benghazi  He needs to submit a report to congress within 90 days explaining his decision to involve the military in Libya's airspace though 

Now if France or some other nation blows a rocket at Gaddafi's compound it'll be on them.


----------



## Raiden (Mar 21, 2011)

Having mixed feelings about this "no fly" zone now.

The president better pull out quickly.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 21, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Obama doesn't have to have congressional approval for this as he's not waging a "war" by definition  It was specifically defined as a no fly zone He needs to submit a report to congress within 90 days explaining his decision to involve the military in Libya's airspace though



Great, now I just have to explain that to my dad, the same person who thinks Obama is trying to deliberately weaken the U.S. because that will put the Kenyans on an equal footing. 

He also argued, why is the U.S. stepping into Libya, which he believes poses no threat, yet is not acting against Iran or Syria?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 21, 2011)

Kagekatsu said:


> Great, now I just have to explain that to my dad, the same person who thinks Obama is trying to deliberately weaken the U.S. because that will put the Kenyans on an equal footing.
> 
> He also argued, why is the U.S. stepping into Libya, which he believes poses no threat, yet is not acting against Iran or Syria?



Well that first paragraph kind of invalidates your dad's political position, no offense to you 

For the second point, we're not going to attack every single dictatorship at one time. For one that's completely stupid when you get to nations like China, as a lot of this has to do with who has our national interest in their hands and who doesn't, and let there be no mistake, our selectivity about who to attack does come with an element of approachability. (ala NK has nukes, Iran is developing nukes ect)

But if the international community just happened to be somewhat supportive of this opportunity to help the direct enemies of one of the US's prime targets, of course we'd go for it, although not without a huge amount of hesitation.

Unlike many critics, i do believe the US(this time) when they say that they only want to enforce a no fly zone and protect civilians. Why else would they be handing off responsibility so quickly i figure, that and the oil they get from there is negligible.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 21, 2011)

Lucifeller said:


> Where did I say I think war is supposed to be fair? I said that GANGING UP ON SOMEONE gives one no right to claim they are doing the 'right' thing. If your only solution is to bully the other guy into submission with brute force, you've already lost, because you lowered yourself to the standard of a mere savage.
> 
> There are no winners in war. And arguably, those who win on the field of battle lose more than those who are slaughtered. They lose their superiority to mere beasts and bring themselves on their same level. Losers merely lose their lives.



Honor is a luxury reserved for the winners. The losers, if they're lucky, get a mass burial. The dead have no use for moral superiority.

Getting allies to attack your enemy is just as valid a tactic in war as any other. Intentionally limiting yourself out of some misguided sense of "fairness" amounts to saying that you don't value your own soldiers to provide them with every advantage you can get. If all you want is fair, why not ask the coalition governments to turn off their targeting radars and give the Libyan army a fair chance at escaping?

Besides, what's stopping the enemy from getting allies of their own? There's some fairness for you. The enemy had just as much of opportunity to get a coalition of their own. Gadhafi could've done as Bahrain did and gotten a bunch of Arab countries to help out with repressing internal revolts and that would've stopped any UN interventions cold. He didn't. His loss.


----------



## Derpie (Mar 21, 2011)

Frankly, there is just no reason for sovereign nations to be engaging in Libya against an enemy that poses no immediate threat to them. 

Civil wars do not provide adequate moral cover for military intervention, irregardless of the spurious perception they may pose of needing as such. 

The principle of self-determination for any people anywhere to decide their own fate within the confines of their own nations is one that all countries profess to adhere to when they are having internal conflicts on their own.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 21, 2011)

Kagekatsu said:


> Great, now I just have to explain that to my dad, the same person who thinks Obama is trying to deliberately weaken the U.S. because that will put the Kenyans on an equal footing.
> 
> He also argued, why is the U.S. stepping into Libya, which he believes poses no threat, yet is not acting against Iran or Syria?


Your dad's an idiot, plain and simple.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 21, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> Honor is a luxury reserved for the winners. The losers, if they're lucky, get a mass burial. The dead have no use for moral superiority.
> 
> Getting allies to attack your enemy is just as valid a tactic in war as any other. Intentionally limiting yourself out of some misguided sense of "fairness" amounts to saying that you don't value your own soldiers to provide them with every advantage you can get. If all you want is fair, why not ask the coalition governments to turn off their targeting radars and give the Libyan army a fair chance at escaping?
> 
> Besides, what's stopping the enemy from getting allies of their own? There's some fairness for you. The enemy had just as much of opportunity to get a coalition of their own. Gadhafi could've done as Bahrain did and gotten a bunch of Arab countries to help out with repressing internal revolts and that would've stopped any UN interventions cold. He didn't. His loss.



I AM A TIGER. HEAR ME ROAR ! RAWWWWWWR


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> I AM A TIGER. HEAR ME ROAR ! RAWWWWWWR



I AM A TIGER WITH _*TIGER BLOOD*_


----------



## Mael (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim does strafing runs in his underwear before his first cup of coffee, straight up.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 21, 2011)

Mael is on my dick. 24/7


----------



## Mael (Mar 21, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Mael is on my dick. 24/7



Which is odd because you said you preferred playing catcher while I play pitcher.


----------



## Time Expired (Mar 22, 2011)

Mael said:


> For the record, folks, Libya is responsible for I believe only single-digit world production of oil.
> 
> It isn't THAT important.  Speculation is what makes the shit go awry.
> 
> And Elim seems to be refining his trolling skills.



While their production is extremely low, the sulfur content of their oil is equally low (sweet crude), which makes it quite a sought after commodity.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Mar 22, 2011)

*Libyan suicide pilot may have killed Gaddafi’s son*


And that's why a plane in the hand of an arab is the most dangerous force known to man.


Too soon?


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 22, 2011)

Why the fark isnt the coalition jamming the signals of Libyan State TV?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 22, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Why the fark isnt the coalition jamming the signals of Libyan State TV?



If its anything like Baghdad Bob, then it`s purely for the lulz.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 22, 2011)

Yeah but some brainwashed people actually believes the shit they spew out


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2011)

They should jam their signals with Japanese and German porn.


----------



## Adagio (Mar 22, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They should jam their signals with Japanese and German porn.



I get Japanese.. but why German?


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2011)

Apparent mechanical failure causes US pilot to bail craft...rescued by rebels:


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Mar 22, 2011)

I'd like to point out that the UK was the first nation to push and impose for a no fly zone as well as one of the first nations to arrive in Japan to help with aid. We're still _Great_ Britian.


----------



## Xyloxi (Mar 22, 2011)

Adagio said:


> I get Japanese.. but why German?



You don't want to know.


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 22, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> You don't need an ideal world to reject the notion of imperialism. Though I'm pretty sure an imperialist like you wouldn't understand.



what's the point of having so much power if you can't share it ?

the rebels requested a very specific service from the U.S/Europe: defend them from getting WIPED OUT completely.

nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## tashtin (Mar 22, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They should jam their signals with Japanese and German porn.



I get German... but why Japanese?



MbS said:


> I'd like to point out that the UK was the first nation to push and impose for a no fly zone as well as one of the first nations to arrive in Japan to help with aid. We're still _Great_ Britian.



yes, yes we are


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 22, 2011)

From CNN



> [8:43 a.m. Tuesday ET, 2:43 p.m. Tuesday in Libya] The United Arab Emirates had been prepared to send two aircraft squadrons to participate in the international effort to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, said Maj. Gen. (Staff) Pilot Khaled Abdullah Al-Buainnain - the former commander of the Emirates' air force and air defense.  However, he said, those plans have changed due to criticism by the United States and the European Union of the Gulf Cooperation Council's deployment of troops to help the monarchy stabilize Bahrain. The UAE has chosen not to take a military role in Libya until Washington and the European Union clarify their position on the use of troops in Bahrain, but it will contribute to the humanitarian effort in Libya, Al-Buainnain said.



They're not forgetting about Bahrain.



> [9:22 a.m. Tuesday ET,3:22 p.m. Tuesday in Libya] Two journalists with Agence France-Presse were arrested Saturday in Libya, the news agency said. Dave Clark, a British journalist, and Roberto Schmidt, a German photographer, were arrested in the Ajdabiya region, said AFP editor in chief for France, Jean Luc Bardet.
> 
> Their driver said they were arrested by the Libyan military, Bardet said. AFP has not had contact with the two since Friday, Bardet said.



Ghaddafi's faction likes to arrest journalists.



> [9:35 a.m. Tuesday ET, 3:35 p.m. Tuesday in Libya] The Spanish parliament on Tuesday approved Spanish military participation in the international coalition operating in Libya. The vote was 336 in favor to 3 opposed, with one abstention, the speaker of the parliament announced after the vote, which was telecast live in Spain.
> 
> The parliamentary approval was required under Spanish law, but Spain has already sent to a base in southern Italy four F-18 fighters and a Boeing 707 refueling plane, and two of the fighters and the refueling plane were in action on Monday, before the vote, the Spanish defense minister
> said.



The Spanish Inquisition gets in on the action, and there's an arms embargo in place, humanitarian aid being put into place for refugees.  There's also a really fun pic from AFP of rebels waving flags atop a tank in Benghazi.


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2011)

Adagio said:


> I get Japanese.. but why German?


Tentacle porn and the horrible squealing the girls do a lot of the time...


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 22, 2011)

Al Jazeera reporting that French aircraft engaged 2 loyalist aircraft heading to Benghazi, looks like we may have our first instance of air-to-air combat. First NATO aerial combat since 1998 as well.

Those Libyan pilots had a death wish in any regard. Not even Saddam was stupid enough to try air attacks in 2003.

Also, wreckage of the F-15E that went down:



First Arab kid to kick that intact Sidewinder is gonna be in for a nasty surprise.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 22, 2011)

That's what I was thinking. What kind of retards brings his kids there?


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 22, 2011)

White Houses says: Installing democratic govt in Libya is one of the coalition's goals.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/151191-white-house-suggests-regime-change-is-goal-of-libya-mission?page=1


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 22, 2011)

Kagekatsu said:


> White Houses says: Installing democratic govt in Libya is one of the coalition's goals.
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...regime-change-is-goal-of-libya-mission?page=1


----------



## Coteaz (Mar 22, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Also, wreckage of the F-15E that went down:


Hmm, although I don't know any specifics about the cause of the crash, it was very likely caused by combustion at the surface of the turbine blades inside the aircraft's F-100 engine. 

It's a well-known problem with the engine, and has been the cause of numerous F-15 crashes in the past decade. More than the media would have you believe.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 22, 2011)

Okay, now the White House is saying they were just misquoted. 

Also, seems Qadaffi is ready to blow Misrata off the map. Rebel forces getting pounded



Love that movie, BTW.


----------



## Alien (Mar 22, 2011)

*Misratah news*

Sounds of fighter jets can be heard over the skies of Misratah right now, and the noise of explosions is also audible but residents are unable to pinpoint its exact source

_CONFIRMED: Gaddafi’s forces which are stationed in the square near the Central Hospital have been targeted with air strikes. The fighter jets are still flying above Misratah
_
The revolutionaries have launched an attack on the remaining Gaddafi forces in Tripoli Street right now


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 22, 2011)




----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 22, 2011)

Twitter?? This aint call of duty mother fuckers


----------



## Xion (Mar 22, 2011)

Alien said:


> *Misratah news*
> 
> Sounds of fighter jets can be heard over the skies of Misratah right now, and the noise of explosions is also audible but residents are unable to pinpoint its exact source
> 
> ...



Sources would be most welcome.


----------



## Terra Branford (Mar 22, 2011)

Alien said:


> *Misratah news*
> 
> Sounds of fighter jets can be heard over the skies of Misratah right now, and the noise of explosions is also audible but residents are unable to pinpoint its exact source
> 
> ...



Alien (I haven't seen you post outside of the Media place before! ), do you happen to have a source for this?


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Mar 22, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> And apparently, the rebels are using twitter to call-in airstrikes against loyalist forces. Now that's social networking



, oh wow something you just have to laugh at, this is pure genius


----------



## T4R0K (Mar 22, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> And apparently, the rebels are using twitter to call-in airstrikes against loyalist forces. Now that's social networking



If there were allied SpecOps on the ground (as if there weren't, lol) :

Operative : Shit ! We can't get sat ! WTF is going on, command ?! Command ? COMMAND ! RESPOND !

Rebel nearby : Hey, what you need, buddy ? I got my Iphone here !


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 22, 2011)

T4R0K said:


> If there were allied SpecOps on the ground (as if there weren't, lol) :
> 
> Operative : Shit ! We can't get sat ! WTF is going on, command ?! Command ? COMMAND ! RESPOND !
> 
> Rebel nearby : Hey, what you need, buddy ? I got my Iphone here !



Need an air-strike delivered hot and fresh in 30 minutes or less?  There's an app for that


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 22, 2011)

Libyan Rebels have their own paparazzi now:



Lol@staged combat photo ops in any regard.


----------



## Dionysus (Mar 22, 2011)

So. Are these air strikes and coordination with the rebels working? Too soon to tell? Delaying Gaddafi's win? Delaying an escalation to an occupation?

This place seems to be ideal for asking such a militarily and politically murky question.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 22, 2011)

Dionysus said:


> So. Are these air strikes and coordination with the rebels working? Too soon to tell? Delaying Gaddafi's win? Delaying an escalation to an occupation?
> 
> This place seems to be ideal for asking such a militarily and politically murky question.



Mumu's forces retreated from Benghazi after taking devastating losses to French air power() and have been losing ground everyday since NATO involvement from what I've seen. The siege of Mistrata seems to be breaking as well, as there's a  out that shows abandoned loyalist T-72's in the streets. That being said, I've heard that Gaddaffi's forces beat some counterattack around Ajdabiya yesterday but they won't be able to hold out against NATO airpower for very long.

The Rebels certainly won't lose anymore, it's just a question of how long Gaddaffi can hang on in Tripoli. His air force and heavy weapons, the two things that gave him a major advantage over the rebels, are now gone.


----------



## Dionysus (Mar 23, 2011)

Have the rebels regrouped and returned to a drive to Tripoli? I just don't get a lot of coherent reports in the news.

Maybe NATO will hold their hand and tell them what to do all the way there.


----------



## Xion (Mar 23, 2011)

Dionysus said:


> Have the rebels regrouped and returned to a drive to Tripoli? I just don't get a lot of coherent reports in the news.
> 
> Maybe NATO will hold their hand and tell them what to do all the way there.



They can't even regain Ajdabiya yet (close to Benghazi), they aren't going near Tripoli until at least Ajdabiya, Ras Lanuf, Brega, Misurata, and Az Zawiya fall into their hands most likely.

Tripoli's sure to be a bitch to take, I'm not even sure if they can do it.



Megaharrison said:


> Mumu's forces retreated from Benghazi after taking devastating losses to French air power() and have been losing ground everyday since NATO involvement from what I've seen. The siege of Mistrata seems to be breaking as well, as there's a  out that shows abandoned loyalist T-72's in the streets. That being said, I've heard that Gaddaffi's forces beat some counterattack around Ajdabiya yesterday but they won't be able to hold out against NATO airpower for very long.
> 
> The Rebels certainly won't lose anymore, it's just a question of how long Gaddaffi can hang on in Tripoli. His air force and heavy weapons, the two things that gave him a major advantage over the rebels, are now gone.



I doubt Gaddafi will stay in Tripoli for very long, though I don't expect rebels to have an easy time taking that city.

Gaddafi will likely try to flee at some point, maybe to Sabha where he has a lot of support amongst his own tribesman. Maybe from there to Chad or Niger.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 23, 2011)

Oh North Korea


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Mar 23, 2011)

this "war" is bullshit


----------



## Mael (Mar 23, 2011)

A good notion of just how silly the Arab League is acting.



Dark Uchiha said:


> this "war" is bullshit



And how so, Chomsky?


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Mar 23, 2011)

Mael said:


> And how so, Chomsky?



to pick sides in a "civil war" is salty in itself.

civilians die when "leaders" of a country try to bring back some kinda "peace" from a "rebellion".

The notion to use "hes killing innocent people", thus we "must" intervene. Brings disgust to me.

You think America would tolerate if a small group of citizens attacked a major city? You think we should have a discussion with said people about their misgivings with the government?

where was the help in darfur, congo or any of the other many African nations that such a thing occurs more so.

Am i for "innocent people dieing?" no, but where was the American bombing of Israel air space when "innocent people" died in the bombings of Gaza?

We get collateral civilian death in trying to stop a rebellion. i see mass hypocrisy in our foreign politics in the picking and choosing to act righteous on something when its obvious a ulterior motive is taking place.

idk if im projecting what i truly feel out but yea this whole thing feels contrived.


----------



## Altron (Mar 23, 2011)

According to the RAF "Gadaffi's Air Force is defeated" 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12837330


----------



## soulnova (Mar 23, 2011)

Dark Uchiha said:


> You think America would tolerate if a small group of citizens attacked a major city? You think we should have a discussion with said people about their misgivings with the government?



After 40 years of a dictatorship? Sure. USA can barely hold 8 years with the same guy. 



> i see mass hypocrisy in our foreign politics in the picking and choosing to act righteous on something when its obvious a ulterior motive is taking place.



It was not just the US. I mean, shit, the UN actually made a decision of any relevance! 

IMO, people actually "gave a shit" because:


Libya has oil and the other countries need the conflict to end quickly.
Thanks to twitter/facebook/youtube the people now "have a face". The world reacts different to "There's people getting killed in that town" to "I'm hiding at my house, the soldiers are outside knocking on the door. This is the end. Pray for me. "


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 23, 2011)

The president is acting under the authority granted him by the 1973 Congressio­nal War powers act.

 There, i said it


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 23, 2011)

soulnova said:


> After 40 years of a dictatorship? Sure. USA can barely hold 8 years with the same guy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lybia barely has any oil, I think they decided to do something because he didn't stop when they told him and had the audacity to threaten to attack a European nation.


----------



## Xion (Mar 23, 2011)

I didn't realize it exactly, but holy shit Gaddafi and his family controlled fucktons (fucktonnes for you Brits) of money!

The Libyan Bank could essentially be his piggy bank making his family's wealth at its peak possibly over $100 billion! That's insane.

He's still sitting on massive gold reserves possibly worth tens of billions they are saying!


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 23, 2011)

Xion said:


> I didn't realize it exactly, but holy shit Gaddafi and his family controlled fucktons (fucktonnes for you Brits) of money!
> 
> The Libyan Bank could essentially be his piggy bank making his family's wealth at its peak possibly over $100 billion! That's insane.
> 
> He's still sitting on massive gold reserves possibly worth tens of billions they are saying!



100 Billion? Richest man in the world? Apparently Mubarak was up there too having a 70 billion fortune. Insane amounts of money stolen from their nations.


----------



## Xion (Mar 23, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> 100 Billion? Richest man in the world? Apparently Mubarak was up there too having a 70 billion fortune. Insane amounts of money stolen from their nations.



Honestly I guess it's hard to be surprised. I mean dictators/tyrants/ruling families are pretty much the most powerful and richest people in the world in terms of their total access to funds and investments, but I didn't expect Gaddafi to have that ridiculously much (though I'm very surprised Mubarak does too considering Egypt was always a lot more "free" than Libya).

But it makes sense considering he is a true dictator like Kim Jong Il and not just your friendly neighborhood dictator like the ruling family of Saudia Arabia! 

I wonder how much they have access to!


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 23, 2011)

I really don't understand this prevailing notion of "_We didn't intervene then so why are we doing it now?_"

Shouldn't it be something more like "_Hooray! We're finally doing it right for once!_"

But I suppose it's hip to put a cynical spin on everything.


----------



## Stalin (Mar 23, 2011)

> Advocating for the U.S.'s military action in Libya, The New Republic's John Judis lays out the argument which many of his fellow war advocates are making: that those who oppose the intervention are guilty of indifference to the plight of the rebels and to Gadaffi's tyranny:
> 
> 
> So I ask myself, would these opponents of U.S. intervention (as part of U.N. Security Council approved action), have preferred:
> ...


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 23, 2011)

There are major differences between Libya and Iraq  

So Salon has it right. 

But let it be clear, not everyone who opposed the Iraq war is a "non interventionist" foreign policy-wise.

I would have supported Rawanda for example.

Iraq is different from most scenario's in that Bush actually took the country into conflict on false pretenses(WMD) while Afganistan was the main target  Under the jurisdiction of a no fly zone, a broad range of objectives can be completed, so we're not getting anything that wasn't expected under the banner of "protecting civilians"


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 23, 2011)

Dark Uchiha said:


> to pick sides in a "civil war" is salty in itself.
> 
> civilians die when "leaders" of a country try to bring back some kinda "peace" from a "rebellion".
> 
> ...



Well first I will say that there is a clear difference between a rebellion in the U.S. and a rebellion in libya. 

Do you not?
Do you think that the Libyan dictatorship is on equal footing as the United States. Do you see the rebellion of a repressed people under the iron rule of a dictator the same a theoretical U.S. rebellion bring down of democracy. 

-hopefully you do and you're not going to insult everyone's intelligence by continuing the point. 


"Next why doesn't the United States do XXXX as well?"

because we are not god. We don't have infinite power, we cannot act in all conflicts in all places in the world where any spark of injustice exists. We, the united states, do not have the power to do so. 

The assumption that if we HELP one people we must help them all is absolutely insane. If I donate money to charity ARE YOU GOING TO SPIT ON ME because I didn't donate to all those who needed help. 
~if you donate to a Muslim charity because you are Muslim, then does your "motive" for helping Muslims over non-muslim make your charity sinister. Are you a hypocrite?

We do what we can, with what we have. 
Action in Libya had a large backing of international support for intervention that DOES NOT EXIST in other conflicts. 

Live with the realities of the world, and not the childish BS.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 23, 2011)

This is another issue. Everyone loves to point out how the US and friends are doing this for selfish reasons.

So what do they want then?

Do they want the West to outright admit "Yeah, we're doing this for the oil/water/resources"?

Do they want us to intervene in every single human rights tragedy?

Do they want the West to stop advocating for freedom and democracy because they aren't consistent in practicing what they preach?

I don't see a solution here, I just see needless lamentation.


----------



## Alien (Mar 23, 2011)

Xion said:


> Sources would be most welcome.


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 23, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3TvYeOQPPs&feature=feedu[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Xion (Mar 23, 2011)

Well you are a little late now haha.

Most sources are reporting Misurata has been the target of major airstrikes by coalition forces and that rebels now hold the city though sniper attacks are still occurring.

That's right! The rebels have won Misurata!

...or what's left of it...

:WOW


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 25, 2011)

NATO has assumed control of this operation. :harbinger


----------



## Raiden (Mar 25, 2011)

Good. The next step is to get Gaddafi out.

Without completely destroying his millitary or killing him.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 25, 2011)

One of the Libyan rebel commanders admits to having ties to Al-Qaeda,


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 25, 2011)

First Tsurugi said:


> I really don't understand this prevailing notion of "_We didn't intervene then so why are we doing it now?_"
> 
> Shouldn't it be something more like "_Hooray! We're finally doing it right for once!_"
> 
> But I suppose it's hip to put a cynical spin on everything.



The reason why the criticism you've noted has been cast on the USA, the UK, et al., is simply to prevent the proponents of intervention in those countries from taking a moral high ground. This doesn't _necessarily_ mean those critics see no moral value in military intervention in Libya, just that those countries can't honestly portray themselves as guards of humanitarian principles as some journalists and politicians are unfortunately trying to do. But I've also seen it being used quite a lot in bad arguments, to be honest.

Though, there are also arguments that can be made against our military intervention altogether. Glenn Greenwald outlined some points to consider in the article quoted above,

... the finitude of resources, doubt about whether U.S. military action will hurt rather than help the situation, cynicism about the true motives of the U.S. government in intervening, how intervention will affect other priorities, the civilian deaths that will inevitably occur at our hands, the precedents that such intervention will set for future crises, and the moral justification of invading foreign countries ...​


----------



## Terra Branford (Mar 25, 2011)

> Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the *"members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader"*.


Yea dude, I'm pretty sure you're the only kook who thinks that.



> US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.


Why didn't that Italian interviewer leave after the first quote? I wonder what he/she said after that...or thought. :/


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 26, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12869658

Rebels managed to recapture Ajdabiya


----------



## T4R0K (Mar 26, 2011)

Wonderful... Seems like next time the West has to go in Lybia, it could be to remove thé people they're helping today.  An extremist Lybia looks worse than Ghaddafi's Lybia, which sucks too.

Let's hope a democracy succeeds thé current regime...


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 26, 2011)

Amidst the fighting between rebel and govt forces, Al-Qaeda agents embedded in Libya seize stockpiles of portable surface-to-air missiles: 

Article doesn't say for sure if their connected with the same rebel commander who admits to having Al-Qaeda links.


----------



## Raiden (Mar 26, 2011)

Are you serious ?


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 26, 2011)

^ Well, it does have my dad claiming this proves his point that Obama is indirectly aiding Al-Qaeda by supporting the rebels.


----------



## Bill_gates (Mar 26, 2011)

we need to get the fuck out of there and let NATO finish this


----------



## iander (Mar 26, 2011)

Rebels have retaken Ajdabia and Brega and are on the move again.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 26, 2011)

And when people say Al Qaeda do they mean the non existan all encompasing group that belongs to bin laden.  Or one of the many bunches of groups around the world that just pick up the name cause it makes them sound "big"


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 26, 2011)

Bill_gates said:


> we need to get the fuck out of there and let NATO finish this



*Facepalm*

The US is part of NATO, and one of the leading members.  Letting NATO handle something means we'll be there


----------



## Shock Therapy (Mar 26, 2011)

biggers weps are needed.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 26, 2011)

We should arm the rebels  Unless it turns them into another Al Qaeda eventually like Afganistan in the 80s when we armed them against the Soviets, then we shoulden't. 

But i think people these days are generally smarter than they were before, or atleast i like to think that


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 27, 2011)

AFP says rebels have taken Ras Lanuf. 

If that is true then that means they are pretty much at the same point on the eastern front as they were before the government launched the counter offensive.


----------



## Mathias124 (Mar 27, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> *Facepalm*
> 
> The US is part of NATO, and one of the leading members.  Letting NATO handle something means we'll be there



America fuck yeah.

Books... not so much


----------



## DarkLordOfKichiku (Mar 27, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> AFP says rebels have taken Ras Lanuf.
> 
> If that is true then that means they are pretty much at the same point on the eastern front as they were before the government launched the counter offensive.



Yeah. Let's see if they (the rebels) can do better this time... Oh, and word on the net is that they're now as far as Bin Jawad.

Wonder what Gaddafi's next move'll be though? Maybe he'll order his army to make a stand at Sirt, as it's his hometown and one of the areas where the Pro-Gaddafi support is the strongest? Possibly he'll divert more forces to try and decide things at Misurata, so that he can turn his attention forward without having to take care of what could be said to be a problem behind the front. Or possibly, assuming that he may want to make a glorious last stand, he'll draw his forces together in Tripoli to a hard core it'll be difficult to break through...? Of course, it's all assuming that his army is in any shape to fight now, as word is that there's signs that they're retreating rather hastly...


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 27, 2011)

DarkLordOfKichiku said:


> Yeah. Let's see if they (the rebels) can do better this time... Oh, and word on the net is that they're now as far as Bin Jawad.
> 
> Wonder what Gaddafi's next move'll be though? Maybe he'll order his army to make a stand at Sirt, as it's his hometown and one of the areas where the Pro-Gaddafi support is the strongest? Possibly he'll divert more forces to try and decide things at Misurata, so that he can turn his attention forward without having to take care of what could be said to be a problem behind the front. Or possibly, assuming that he may want to make a glorious last stand, he'll draw his forces together in Tripoli to a hard core it'll be difficult to break through...? Of course, it's all assuming that his army is in any shape to fight now, as word is that there's signs that they're retreating rather hastly...



I believe the same. He's going to make sure that Sirt holds, as its effectively a coastal block that divide East and West Libya. Then gradually get control over Misrata(as its the only major foothold the rebels have in western Libya to launch an attack towards Tripoli from). 

If Gaddafi can do that, perhaps he can survive for a few weeks more, maybe even months.


----------



## DarkLordOfKichiku (Mar 27, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> I believe the same. He's going to make sure that Sirt holds, as its effectively a coastal block that divide East and West Libya. Then gradually get control over Misrata(as its the only major foothold the rebels have in western Libya to launch an attack towards Tripoli from).
> 
> If Gaddafi can do that, perhaps he can survive for a few weeks more, maybe even months.



Yeah. The key for Gaddafi will obviously be to try and make a stand at towns/cities. After all, the coalition/NATO seems to mostly abstain from targeting cities directly. I guess Afghansitan/Iraq has taught the world a few things about just how much potential for civilian causalties and bad publicy lies that way, no matter how supposedly "accurate" your equipment is. Which means that bloody and slow street fightning (if that's the word) will probably be the result...


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 27, 2011)

I think Sarkozy taste how it could be a problem to be member of NATO. Because of the others, France is no more free of its own operations.

He joined NATO to convince the rest of the EU to create a common army but the a conflict like Libya show how Europe is not united. Plus, Turkey act more like an enemy than a ally with us.


----------



## DarkLordOfKichiku (Mar 28, 2011)

Huh. According to one swedish newspaper, the rebel forces have already taken Sirt. That's... Unexpected, if true. One'd have expected the Pro-Gaddafi forces to keep a very tight grip on Sirt, but appearently not.  If that's the case, then the fightning will focus on Misurata as the rebels move in to turn the situation there...


----------



## Xion (Mar 28, 2011)

DarkLordOfKichiku said:


> Huh. According to one swedish newspaper, the rebel forces have already taken Sirt. That's... Unexpected, if true. One'd have expected the Pro-Gaddafi forces to keep a very tight grip on Sirt, but appearently not.  If that's the case, then the fightning will focus on Misurata as the rebels move in to turn the situation there...



Doubtful.

If anything they'd guard Sirte with their lives. If they pull back from Sirte then there is no reason to hold Misurata.

They are likely falling back to Tripoli to mount a huge resistance to any rebel push into the Libyan capital.


----------



## DarkLordOfKichiku (Mar 28, 2011)

Xion said:


> Doubtful.
> 
> If anything they'd guard Sirte with their lives.


 
I guess we can only wait for confirmation from additional sources in this matter.



Xion said:


> If they pull back from Sirte then there is no reason to hold Misurata.



Hmm. Withdrawing from Misurata could prove costly, though. Much of the force there consist of tanks in the town, apparently. Pulling them out of the town means potentially exposing them to NATO's airstrikes.



Xion said:


> They are likely falling back to Tripoli to mount a huge resistance to any rebel push into the Libyan capital.



Probably, yeah. If both Sirt and Misurata falls to the rebels, then there isn't much other choice for Gaddafi left...


----------



## Xion (Mar 28, 2011)

DarkLordOfKichiku said:


> I guess we can only wait for confirmation from additional sources in this matter.



Al Jazeera is quoting rebels on the matter, I'd be surprised if it's entirely true, but we'll probably know more tomorrow.



DarkLordOfKichiku said:


> Hmm. Withdrawing from Misurata could prove costly, though. Much of the force there consist of tanks in the town, apparently. Pulling them out of the town means potentially exposing them to NATO's airstrikes.



Most of the heavy infantry has been destroyed in Misurata IIRC. The main problem are sniper nests as coalition airstrikes can't reach them. I think some indiscriminate shelling continued, but I believe the coalition cleared out most tanks from Misurata in air strikes several days ago.

But how far they'll get into Tripoli will be another thing entirely. Only Sirte and Misurata remain before Tripoli as major cities.


----------



## iander (Mar 28, 2011)

Its amazing how they have been able to hold out in Misurata so long.  The coalition air strikes helped but they have been besieged there for quite a long time.  Its become their Stalingrad.


----------



## Jin-E (Mar 28, 2011)

......Ok

If Sirte has really fallen, this more and more reminds me of Afghanistan Autumn 2001-Spring 2002. Back then, for a time it looked like things had stalled, until the floodgates opened and the rebels prety much could just walk through Kabuls gates. 

Ironically, the only thing the regime is right about is the fact that NATO is lying about regime change and aiding the rebels not being the main goal. The forces in iIrte werent attacking civilians inside the city or did any offensive operations, yet they were still bombed.


----------



## pikachuwei (Mar 28, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12877319

seems like the rebels havent actually taken over Sirte yet


----------



## DarkLordOfKichiku (Mar 28, 2011)

Xion said:


> Al Jazeera is quoting rebels on the matter, I'd be surprised if it's entirely true, but we'll probably know more tomorrow.



Turns out it apparently isn't:

"AFP reported that the rebel?s advance on the city of Sirte has been halted about 85 miles from the edge of Sirte by pro-Gaddafi forces"

So, the battle has yet to happen.



Xion said:


> Most of the heavy infantry has been destroyed in Misurata IIRC. The main problem are sniper nests as coalition airstrikes can't reach them. I think some indiscriminate shelling continued, but I believe the coalition cleared out most tanks from Misurata in air strikes several days ago.



Dunno, word is apparently that there are still about 10-12 Loyalist tanks in there, that withdraws to cover as soon as there seems to be a risk of an airstrike...



Jin-E said:


> ......Ok
> 
> If Sirte has really fallen, this more and more reminds me of Afghanistan Autumn 2001-Spring 2002. Back then, for a time it looked like things had stalled, until the floodgates opened and the rebels prety much could just walk through Kabuls gates.



I guess that was the case. Though in this case there probably won't be any invasion by western troops to help the rebels, making the case more similar to the later stages of the Bosnian War, perhaps. Still, as said above, Sirt hasn't fallen yet - the battle hasn't even started - so it's hard to say just how "easily" they'll take the town.


----------



## Mael (Mar 28, 2011)

> Russia, which abstained in the U.N. vote, said Western attacks on Gaddafi's forces amounted to taking sides with the rebels.
> 
> "We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil war is not sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council resolution," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a news conference.
> 
> Russian oil company Tatneft is expected to book $100 million of losses on capital expenditure in Libya as a result of the conflict, a company source told Reuters.



Oh Russia.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 28, 2011)

Mael said:


> Oh Russia.



What else do you expect?  There's nothing particularly wrong with using diplomacy or warfare to protect your financial interests.  Would you approve of a looter smashing your shop's windows and stealing your stock?


----------



## Mael (Mar 28, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> What else do you expect?  There's nothing particularly wrong with using diplomacy or warfare to protect your financial interests.  Would you approve of a looter smashing your shop's windows and stealing your stock?



I just love all the bitching and moaning from nations who simply ABSTAINED from the vote.  Russians could've damn well vetoed it but instead they just jeer from the sidelines.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 28, 2011)

Mael said:


> I just love all the bitching and moaning from nations who simply ABSTAINED from the vote.  Russians could've damn well vetoed it but instead they just jeer from the sidelines.



There was probably diplomacy behind the curtains that lead into the Russians abstaining instead of vetoing. Maybe they got something in exchange.  But they will still bitch about this.

----

Also there was some disparity between the comments of Putin and Medvedev on the issue of the intervention in Libya.  Maybe Putin has a more personal stake at the money lost.


----------



## Cornbreesha (Mar 28, 2011)

Libya: Y U NO MAKE UP DAMN MIND


----------



## DarkLordOfKichiku (Mar 29, 2011)

Hmm, Pro-Gaddafi forces have apparently used heavy weapons to force the rebels to retreat back towards to Bin Jawad. Well, looks like the Siege of Tripoli will have to wait further. Word is also that Gaddafi's moving his forces to Tripoli, apparently expecting the very siege I mentioned to come. So it looks like his current tactic - mines on the roads, heavy weapon bombarment, etc - is all just to buy himself time to consolidate his forces and dig in...

By the way, has there been any word on whether any of the Libyan fleet has joined the rebels? We know that part of the army and the air force has, but what about the fleet (which hasn't played much of a part in the war so far AFAIK)?


----------



## T4R0K (Mar 29, 2011)

I've been listening to the afterword of today's "contact group" meeting. There's word of presumed AQ members within the ranks of the rebels. 

I'm currently trying to get a source in english, I only have this article in french :



Basically, a NATO officer says the intelligence services have elements indicating the presence of Benny's fanboys trying to take advantage of the chaos.

Oh boy, this is getting complicated...


----------



## Zabuzalives (Mar 30, 2011)

News reports of rebels being besten back from sirte and ras lanuf. 

I wonder how many actually support The uprising seeing it has proven to be pretty shaky


----------



## DarkLordOfKichiku (Mar 30, 2011)

Zabuzalives said:


> News reports of rebels being besten back from sirte and ras lanuf.



Latest word is apparently that the rebels have bene driven back as far as Ajdabiyah now. Again. Maybe it'll be only a matter of time until we see the second battle of Benghazi?  .

In response the coalition has apparently begun air strikes against Gaddafi's forces, but the damage as well as the number of strikes has apparently been limited because of sandstorms in the area...


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 30, 2011)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330

ahahahahaha

it's like he's ASKING to not be re-elected


----------



## Xion (Mar 31, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330
> 
> ahahahahaha
> 
> it's like he's ASKING to not be re-elected



Yeah I much rather he send in half of the U.S. military to fight a decade long war with thousands of American casualties...oh wait...


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 31, 2011)

Xion said:


> Yeah I much rather he send in half of the U.S. military to fight a decade long war with thousands of American casualties...oh wait...



You realize, of course, that this is pretty much how the US got stuck in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and half of bloody South and Central America, right? They started off with covert operations and eventually got into it overtly.

Covert ops are covert ops. It WILL come back to bite you in the ass if you pretend they're anything but dirty methods for enforcing your will.

I'm not against covert operations, per se. What I hate is this political rhetoric about how an exit strategy is available (we don't), that we're only doing a no-fly zone (we're not), that we're just in this to support democracy (we're sure as fuck not), that regime change can be done with nothing but good wishes and air power (it can't) and that the rebels are competent enough to stand on their own without Western guidance (they're not).

tl;dr either get in there with a fucking purpose and wipe Tripoli off the map, or get the fuck out of the country. The USN and USAF are for fighting America's enemies, not Europe's.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 31, 2011)

Xion said:


> Yeah I much rather he send in half of the U.S. military to fight a decade long war with thousands of American casualties...oh wait...


Except that the decade long war is a war for our own interests not someone else's,


----------



## Lightysnake (Mar 31, 2011)

What possible 'interest' did Iraq serve?


----------



## Xion (Mar 31, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> You realize, of course, that this is pretty much how the US got stuck in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and half of bloody South and Central America, right? They started off with covert operations and eventually got into it overtly.
> 
> Covert ops are covert ops. It WILL come back to bite you in the ass if you pretend they're anything but dirty methods for enforcing your will.
> 
> ...



We don't even know what extent these covert ops will play. When U.S. soldiers are being sent into Libya, then perhaps we'll talk.

For now I support the destruction of this dictator's regime and the reason we entered this fight in the first place. It shows there are causes for which entering a conflict can be just.

This was a mulilateral action originally sanctioned by most of the modern world and the Arab League and in addition to seemingly being a morally right choice it's also a choice that serves our interests, though the environment is of course complicated. Gaddafi in power in a shattered Libya is very dangerous.

The calls of hypocrisy are absolutely ridiculous. Yes, we "support" (i.e. tolerate) dictatorial regimes, but only because we can't intervene in every single's country's problem and isolate every single country that is in such a state. It's a matter of practicality. The moment we say fuck you to Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or any of the 20+ or so countries in the world with dictators (not to mention the countless with oligarchies and extreme corruption), we harm ourselves financially, socially, and bring forth a dangerous security environment. But when the population so rises up against the government to bring it to the point of collapse as happened in Libya, then supporting the population is right. 

Especially when their leader is a madman who had no problem funding well-organized terrorist acts in the past, who has spread his corrupt influences throughout the world, and who massacres anyone who dares to stand against him.

Aside from Kim Jong Il, Gaddafi has to be one of the last "true" dictators in the world.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Except that the decade long war is a war for our own interests not someone else's,



I have to agree with the poster above me. What interests? George W. Bush's vendetta against Saddam?


----------



## DarkLordOfKichiku (Mar 31, 2011)

At any rate, the NAto/France/Western powers will have to do SOMETHING soon. They've pledged support to the rebels, so if Gaddafi manages to completely turn the situation now (well, on the plus side, we're not quite back to where we were when the coalition finailly struck earlier this month) and defeats the rebels then... Imagine what an embarrasing/black spot it would be for the western forces were Gaddafi to somehow triumph now  .


----------



## Renaissance (Mar 31, 2011)

Gaddafi is the living example of what it is to be a gangster. When you see the word in a dictionary it will be his picture next to it. Taking on the world and still standing tall. Epic. I won't believe the hype about just helping the rebels. There is more behind the curtain, always is.


----------



## strongarm85 (Mar 31, 2011)

Mael said:


> I just love all the bitching and moaning from nations who simply ABSTAINED from the vote.  Russians could've damn well vetoed it but instead they just jeer from the sidelines.





Narutofann12 said:


> There was probably diplomacy behind the curtains that lead into the Russians abstaining instead of vetoing. Maybe they got something in exchange.  But they will still bitch about this.
> 
> ----
> 
> Also there was some disparity between the comments of Putin and Medvedev on the issue of the intervention in Libya.  Maybe Putin has a more personal stake at the money lost.



Russia only maintains it's ability to veto in the UN, and thus the power that comes with that, if, and only if the UN Continues to function. Honestly, if the motivations in intervening in the conflict were great enough, the members in favor of stepping in might have been able to form a 2nd "Coalition of the Willing" ala George Bush.

If a second Coalition were to form, it would greatly undermine the UN's Authority, and also it's power. The UN is a significant means for Russia to exert it's power on the world. The UN could quite possibly by their strongest means of doing so as a matter of fact. Russia would be foolish to willingly throw away it's own power, even if doing so means some significant financial losses, the financial burden would still be less than Russia's presence on the international stage diminishing.

That's my thought on it anyways. Unless there is a major leak we'll never know for sure, but my guess is Russia went into this looking at a loose loose situation and chose to loose a little in the pocket book to keep from looking the big stage. That's my guess.


----------



## hyakku (Mar 31, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> You realize, of course, that this is pretty much how the US got stuck in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and half of bloody South and Central America, right? They started off with covert operations and eventually got into it overtly.
> 
> Covert ops are covert ops. It WILL come back to bite you in the ass if you pretend they're anything but dirty methods for enforcing your will.
> 
> ...



I would have sex with this post if I could in all it's glorious accuracy. You are insane and quite simply just ignoring history but not studying the negative impact covert operations performed without full intent has had on american interest in the middle east over the past three decades. Why are they so fucking eager to replicate this?

And for everyone saying, "this is just though", just stop that drivel. Qaddafi killed a few people compared to the massacres over the past few years of Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, etc. People keep giving bs excuses for not being able to go in there (we were busy, it was Too hard etc.) yet they all evaporate when it comes to fucking Libya?

 No, what occurred was that the west thought they could get their way quickly and move qaddafi out of power without too much of a fuss to keep things running smoothly, and they are finding out that that is highly unlikely without extensive aid on their part, and most of that aid is going to need to come from us, and potentially France's coffers (their intelligence agency plays no games). Sarkozy is already fucked in France so he's likely already down to arm them up,  but obama needs to think long and hard about his 2012 prospects before moving further. As it is, most Americans don't support the expenses of this limited fighting in it's current form, despite ideally relating to th Libyan rebels. He's out of his fucking mind if he thinks that americans are gonna go for spending billions towards Libya, including his supporters.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 31, 2011)

I don't get the outrage over the U.S. "secretly helping the rebels" now. 

I mean, disagree with going into Libya in the first time but now that NATO is involved, no shit they're going to side directly with the rebels. They need to end this as soon as possible for the Libyan people, there should be special forces on the ground leading these operations, airdrops of supplies to the rebels, and coordinating offensives with them if there aren't already. This isn't an objective effort, NATO is attacking Gaddaffi, not the Rebels. Why you don't want to make sure that effort is thus done as effectively as possible I don't understand.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 31, 2011)

Covert ops are not illegal, although definitely within the CIA's moral gray area type of operations that can come back to hurt the US eventually if it turns south, remember how the US armed the rebels of Afghanistan against the Soviets? Those were the ancestors of Al Qaida(and Bin Laden directly being influenced by that decision) fighting against the Soviets  


Of course, my own opinion is now that NATO is in there, it would be stupid to not get rid of the major threat to civilians, that being Gaddafi and his military. But there are plenty of risks involved.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 31, 2011)

ehehe what's the question?


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 31, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> I don't get the outrage over the U.S. "secretly helping the rebels" now.
> 
> I mean, disagree with going into Libya in the first time but now that NATO is involved, no shit they're going to side directly with the rebels. They need to end this as soon as possible for the Libyan people, there should be special forces on the ground leading these operations, airdrops of supplies to the rebels, and coordinating offensives with them if there aren't already. This isn't an objective effort, NATO is attacking Gaddaffi, not the Rebels. Why you don't want to make sure that effort is thus done as effectively as possible I don't understand.



My problem with it is not that the US is backing the rebels, has authorized covert ops to help them, or that the US has joined with most of Europe in helping the rebels. My problem is that Obama (and pretty much every other past president, actually) still feels the need to try and sneakily increase the scope of our involvement while spouting political rhetoric to the contrary. 

We are supposed to have an exit strategy, a lesson that's been nailed into us due to Iraq and Afghanistan. AFAIK, our exit strategy has basically been to shift the goalposts until people can't remember what the original exit strategy was.

This was supposed to be nothing more than a no-fly zone. On, oh, about _forty-five minutes before the no-fly zone started_, French planes already started taking out tanks. If you're going to take out ground forces to protect civilians, then call it for what it is: lending our air power to support the rebels, not just a no-fly zone.

Then there's the statements about how there would be no US ground troops. I guess the CIA don't count as troops, so their involvement is okay, right? Fuck that. If you're going to explicitly authorize covert ops, then this is no longer just "preventing Gadhafi from killing civilians." This is us doing our damnedest to take the fucker out.

If we're going to take Gadhafi out, then stop fucking pussyfooting around and _do it already_! NATO has more than enough ordnance to flatten a paved road from Benghazi to Tripoli! Stop trying to play coy and fucking do your jobs, it's not like the Middle East could possibly hate you any worse!

tl;dr just fucking call it for what it is. Seeing the political establishment try to pull the wool over peoples' eyes with fake technicalities is just insulting. Seeing people _fall for it_ is depressing.

Just once, I'd like to see a president who outright states: "We're going to go into this country full of brown people, flatten this area here, and bug the fuck out" instead of using nebulous goals that can change depending on whatever political context is convenient at the time.


----------



## Xion (Mar 31, 2011)

Darklyre said:


> This was supposed to be nothing more than a no-fly zone. On, oh, about _forty-five minutes before the no-fly zone started_, French planes already started taking out tanks. If you're going to take out ground forces to protect civilians, then call it for what it is: lending our air power to support the rebels, not just a no-fly zone.



You should read the text of the resolution, it certainly allowed for a no-drive zone and the people who complain otherwise have been misled that only a no-fly zone was authorized.

And FTR, if France didn't take out that convoy of military vehicles that were raining down rockets on Benghazi and would have advanced in it, the current situation might have been a lot different.



			
				Darklyre said:
			
		

> Then there's the statements about how there would be no US ground troops. I guess the CIA don't count as troops, so their involvement is okay, right? Fuck that. If you're going to explicitly authorize covert ops, then this is no longer just "preventing Gadhafi from killing civilians." This is us doing our damnedest to take the fucker out.



That's right they don't count as ground troops. They are there to speak to rebel "leaders" to gather intel on the situation and anything else that might be needed to help them overthrow Gaddafi...ergh...I mean protect civilians.



			
				Darklyre said:
			
		

> If we're going to take Gadhafi out, then stop fucking pussyfooting around and _do it already_! NATO has more than enough ordnance to flatten a paved road from Benghazi to Tripoli! Stop trying to play coy and fucking do your jobs, it's not like the Middle East could possibly hate you any worse!



I'd be hesitant to call logistical shots like you are the NATO Supreme Commander or something, I'm sure their intel and perception of the situation is a lot better than yours. That includes information on pro-Gaddafi as well as rebel capabilities and assets. As for taking Gaddafi out, that's a lot easier in theory than it is in practice.



			
				DarkLyre said:
			
		

> tl;dr just fucking call it for what it is. Seeing the political establishment try to pull the wool over peoples' eyes with fake technicalities is just insulting. Seeing people _fall for it_ is depressing.
> 
> Just once, I'd like to see a president who outright states: "We're going to go into this country full of brown people, flatten this area here, and bug the fuck out" instead of using nebulous goals that can change depending on whatever political context is convenient at the time.



I don't think anybody is being "fooled" given wherever I go online I see conspiratorial pacifists screaming at Obama for intervening in Libya and saying the same shit you are (including that we're there for oil, we're there to supply the MIC, we're there to x and y and z, nefarious, nebluous, etc. etc.).

It was a shitty choice either way, but I think the right choice was made in the end. Granted we are clearly pushing the boundaries of the resolution by taking a strong anti-Gaddafi and pro-rebel side, but I'm fine with that because it's obvious where the root of the problem lies. In one tiny bunker in Tripol or Sabha.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Apr 10, 2011)

Qadaffi accepts South African peace plan:


----------

