|
Doccers posted:sadly, it's often the opposite. These things leave burning hot steel fragments everywhere. If you're not hit somewhere immediately fatal, you have a burning hot chunk of metal imbedded in you and it's ripped open your flesh like Pyramidhead or the chainsaw loving massacre guy. Yeah, I realized that and edited in my comment about the survivors. I was really just referring to the absolute worst of the images where all that's left of someone is their head and bits of their legs. Those things look terrible but they had it quick and easy compared to the people who are getting mutilated but surviving. It's a really depressing situation.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:AA guns are always dual purpose. Other posters have mentioned the use of heavy (German 88mm and 128mm) flak guns against tanks in WW2, but heavy AA is not used any more as missiles have replaced them. Rapid firing small calibre AA guns however are still very popular, and they are also very effective anti-infantry weapons due to their high rates of fire, especially as mounted versions such as the Soviet ZSU-23/4 Shilka (four barrels of 23mm caliber). With just one second burst, it can fire In World War 2, the Americans used this Quad-gun .50 machinegun setup as a towed anti-aircraft gun or mounted in a half-track. They expected heavy German air presence inhibiting action on the ground so they made lots of them. However, after the Falaise pocket, German airpower was almost non-existent, so, they used the guns for clearing out snipers and enemy emplacements. One tactic was to find the tree a sniper was in, aim for the trunk, and cut the tree down with machinegun fire and have the sniper fall into it. The Allies had a name for the Quad-.50s. They called them "meat-choppers".
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
Doccers posted:it's still not our place to intervene, for very good reason. gently caress you it would save lives. I don't give a gently caress if the protesters who happen to live through this inhumane massacre feel emasculated or put out that they needed someone else to come in and stop the wholesale slaughter of thousands of their country men women and children. The idea that political considerations should be taken into account when a vast mass murder is taking place is an abhorrent thought and the greatest example of cowardice I can think of. Good thing we didn't help the 6 million Jews during the holocaust. They might have had their feelings hurt. gently caress You.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
Billy the Mountain posted:gently caress you it would save lives. I don't give a gently caress if the protesters who happen to live through this inhumane massacre feel emasculated or put out that they needed someone else to come in and stop the wholesale slaughter of thousands of their country men women and children. The idea that political considerations should be taken into account when a vast mass murder is taking place is an abhorrent thought and the greatest example of cowardice I can think of. Yes because I want people to get killed. What the gently caress are you smoking you retarded hack?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
What is going to happen when Gadaffi is gone? By whatever means will inevitably oust him - will the people trust the military to hold an interim government like we saw in Egypt? Seems like the military isn't respected like Egypt's is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:13
|
|
Billy the Mountain posted:gently caress you it would save lives. I don't give a gently caress if the protesters who happen to live through this inhumane massacre feel emasculated or put out that they needed someone else to come in and stop the wholesale slaughter of thousands of their country men women and children. The idea that political considerations should be taken into account when a vast mass murder is taking place is an abhorrent thought and the greatest example of cowardice I can think of.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I'm not talking about the US. I just used them as an example. I'm not American, I don't care. No man i totally agree with you, I just think that's its funny that a lot of countries that are in the position to help, can't say anything with out looking like hypocrites.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Billy the Mountain posted:Good thing we didn't help the 6 million Jews during the holocaust. Yes because the Libyan situation is literally the WW2 Holocaust. People are being taken out of their homes and sent on trains to destruction camps. Sivias posted:Seems like the military isn't respected like Egypt's is. At least anyone below the rank of a Colonel can say "we were just following orders"...
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Oh man, this is Iraqi propaganda minister time all over again:quote:RawyaRageh #Libya's Deputy FM on AJArabic: I called in to tell you about ur dismal coverage & tell u, you do not own the airwaves alone #Feb17
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Sivias posted:What is going to happen when Gadaffi is gone? By whatever means will inevitably oust him - will the people trust the military to hold an interim government like we saw in Egypt? No, it's really just an instrument of Gadaffi. I suspect when he's gone, one of the military commanders high up (but not TOO high up) will try and take charge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:You significantly limit yourself, your nation and the world by believing the future cannot differ from the past. It's reasonable to claim that Egyptians will move towards democracy despite them "never having it" because there's a conceivable reason for them to want to. The same does not exist for capital and allowing client states to slip away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
Billy the Mountain posted:gently caress you it would save lives. I don't give a gently caress if the protesters who happen to live through this inhumane massacre feel emasculated or put out that they needed someone else to come in and stop the wholesale slaughter of thousands of their country men women and children. The idea that political considerations should be taken into account when a vast mass murder is taking place is an abhorrent thought and the greatest example of cowardice I can think of. Intervening in this ends any chance of the middle eastern revolutions staying viable, confirms everything every dictator has said about foreign influence being the real cause of the demonstrations, engenders even worse crackdowns in the surviving dictatorships, mires the United States in another Imperialist adventure and overall is the wrong thing to do. It loving sucks that people are getting killed. I'd love to see my country intervene in something just for once. The West can't play that card because of hundreds of years of meddling, though. It is, honestly, better to let the opposition fight for their freedom and win than intervene on the grounds we get another client state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
Sivias posted:What is going to happen when Gadaffi is gone? By whatever means will inevitably oust him - will the people trust the military to hold an interim government like we saw in Egypt? It's not clear. The political situation isn't as developed as in Tunisia or Egypt, where they had elections (sham elections, but it matters) and political parties. There's no constitution in Libya, there's no elections, political parties aren't really allowed. As far as I can tell, civil society is heavily repressed. Libya unfortunately is a very understudied area, mostly because it's very opaque and hard to get access to, so there's not much information available. I'll do some research though. edit: there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_for_the_Salvation_of_Libya , but I'm not sure how popular it is. Xandu fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Feb 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
This is amazingquote:RawyaRageh #Libya's deputy FM to AJArabic presenter: 'No, no. You are not allowed to mock me!" #Feb17 #Benghazi
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Sivias posted:What is going to happen when Gadaffi is gone? By whatever means will inevitably oust him - will the people trust the military to hold an interim government like we saw in Egypt? That's really one of the fundamental differences between the two. In Egypt, Mubarak was the frontman for the corrupt oligarchy that had been ruling the country since before he got there. Removing Mubarak is a great move, but it doesn't destroy the fundamental structure of Egypt (and allows a transition to be peaceful). In Libya, Qadaffi IS the regime. Remove him and there's nothing, Libya will need to build a new order from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Greyhawk posted:Oh man, this is Iraqi propaganda minister time all over again: *In the background, tanks smash through a wall and crush cars, guns blazing*
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:If I was in Wisconsin and the government was shooting me with tanks and AA vehicles, I would cheer Satan himself if he came to defend me. There is no enemy greater than the one that is shooting your unarmed neighbors with a tank. This is true and it's why a lot of countries were very friendly towards the Americans directly following WW2. In Belgium they LOVE Canadians because it was the Canadian forces that kicked the Nazis out. The difference is that in that case it was a foreign invader that occupied the country so when they were gone, there wasn't a need to rebuild the government because one already existed. It's a lot touchier in a case of a dictator declaring war on his own people, because the only way to really win that war is to completely wipe out the government and military (or at least, wipe them out to the point that the remainder defects/surrenders). I think the best thing they could do is provide supplies to the protesters; food and medical supplies of course, but even weapons and training if they request it. The problem right now is you have the Libyan military attacked the unarmed populace, so although the people vastly outnumber the military, they don't have the means to defend themselves. If those means are provided, you won't really need to have a foreign military presence to help them remove their dictator, and allowing them to win the war for themselves also helps avoid the "nation building" problem that the US has in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a complicated problem, really. When a nation gets to the point that Libya is at, it becomes very difficult to figure out what to do. Of course Qadafi is the bad guy here, and he needs to be gone pronto. But if you hand out weapons to the civilians, and the guy who ends up replacing Qadafi with the weapons you gave him turns out to be just as bad, the whole thing starts over again. I can understand why other nations are hesitant to take a stance that strong. They should at least send them medicine and food though. There is no way that could turn bad and the people really need the aid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:Intervening in this ends any chance of the middle eastern revolutions staying viable, confirms everything every dictator has said about foreign influence being the real cause of the demonstrations, engenders even worse crackdowns in the surviving dictatorships, mires the United States in another Imperialist adventure and overall is the wrong thing to do. This. We've lost utterly the ability to meddle or get involved in affairs, without causing even MORE problems. Yes the killing sucks, Yes if I was god I'd rain down the fires of judgement, Yes if I had one of those gun crews within 600 yards of me right now this very second I'd take a shot at them gently caress the consequences, But I'm none of these things, and I'm not a Libyan, and THEY HAVE ASKED US TO STAY THE gently caress OUT OF IT. They are DYING and BLEEDING and STILL TELLING US TO STAY THE gently caress OUT WHAT ABOUT THIS DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND JESUS gently caress AARGH
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
What if a less hated country like Canada or Denmark intervened?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
Doccers posted:This. We've lost utterly the ability to meddle or get involved in affairs, without causing even MORE problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Wait, when did we HAVE this ability? back when the vogue thing for white european countries/america was to meddle and get involved in affairs, which is exactly what landed us in this mess. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
Doccers posted:This. We've lost utterly the ability to meddle or get involved in affairs, without causing even MORE problems. Who is asking us to stay out? That one Libya Dude tweet? Who is he? As a human being I find it horrific that we (and MANY other countries) have the power to stop the killing of civilians within 48 hours give or take, but won't, because of politics. If you disagree with me, fine. It's just how I feel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
Billy the Mountain posted:gently caress you it would save lives. I don't give a gently caress if the protesters who happen to live through this inhumane massacre feel emasculated or put out that they needed someone else to come in and stop the wholesale slaughter of thousands of their country men women and children. The idea that political considerations should be taken into account when a vast mass murder is taking place is an abhorrent thought and the greatest example of cowardice I can think of. You're right for the wrong reasons. It's not our place to adopt a strong paternalistic stance; But we can 'justify' paternalism if and only if the following 3 circumstances are met: 1) It's (exclusively) to avoid great harm (and not to achieve some 'greater good') 2) The people are unable to express their will themselves (they are being repressed; there is no dispute that their government no longer represents them) 3) It's reasonable to assume that, at a later time, the people would ratify the decision. You can't justify intervention because you can't stomach a youtube video. And you can't justify intervention if you can't satisfy those three conditions. And these criteria are really just a bunch of ideas some utilitarian philosophers came up with for doctors, they're not divine law of Objective Morality (as determined a priori with absolute confidence). There are subjective and cultural value judgments even in these criteria. But I think it'd be the strongest sell any international body could make for intervening in the current situation. Your argument, however, would be an embarrassment to any military that attempted to intervene on those grounds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Billy the Mountain posted:As a human being I find it horrific that we (and MANY other countries) have the power to stop the killing of civilians within 48 hours give or take, but won't, because of politics. If you disagree with me, fine. It's just how I feel. Yeah, it is loving horrific. It's also entirely 100% our fault.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Billy the Mountain posted:If you disagree with me, fine. It's just how I feel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Wait, when did we HAVE this ability? Between the start of WWII and the start of the Korean war. So a little over a decade in total.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
[edit] Apology accepted. Doccers fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Feb 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:Intervening in this ends any chance of the middle eastern revolutions staying viable, confirms everything every dictator has said about foreign influence being the real cause of the demonstrations, engenders even worse crackdowns in the surviving dictatorships, mires the United States in another Imperialist adventure and overall is the wrong thing to do. With the West out, there's two major military powers left in the world that could conceivably intervene, and neither Israel nor Russia is loved around those parts of the world. I don't see how anyone can do anything without it turning into an even worse mess. Even if UN had any military power (and it doesn't), security council is an instrument designed to prevent massacres, not stop them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Billy the Mountain posted:Who is asking us to stay out? That one Libya Dude tweet? Who is he? The former Libyan diplomat who resigned said "We don't want the west to interfere. We just want them to tell the world that what is happening there is terrible."
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Doccers posted:This. We've lost utterly the ability to meddle or get involved in affairs, without causing even MORE problems. Libyan officials and diplomats want a no-fly zone, not an occupation. It has been requested at the UN. There are crimes being committed against unarmed people by their air force.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Stop personally attacking people you disagree with. Your right, I apologize, and won't do it again. I watched both of the videos going around and got worked up and posted from a very emotional place. For some reason the detachment I usually feel when looking at news of terrible things going on around the world left me, and with it my better judgment. Again, I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:What if a less hated country like Canada or Denmark intervened? They couldn't. They just don't have the military capability to project power on short notice that far from home. Nor do the EU powers on their own - even nearby countries like Italy. Only the U.S. has the ability to maintain sustained operations required to take and retain control of Libyan airspace should the U.N. call for a no-fly zone. That would involve carrier air, aerial refueling, and AWACS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
PlantRobot posted:Libyan officials and diplomats want a no-fly zone, not an occupation. It has been requested at the UN. There are crimes being committed against unarmed people by their air force. Last I heard the Libyan diplomats were saying "Stay Out". If Libya changes it's mind and wants a no fly zone, we are Very Very Very good at denying the sky to anybody we don't like and I pray to god we vaporize any gently caress who takes to the air in the hopes to bomb an unarmed crowd of people. But the last I've heard was "stay out".
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
Sivias posted:The former Libyan diplomat who resigned said "We don't want the west to interfere. We just want them to tell the world that what is happening there is terrible." In the interview I watched he asked for an enforced no fly zone over Libyan cities, safe passage for medical supplies into and out of egypt/tunisia and an ICC trial set up for Gadaffi
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
One thing that could be done would be to sieze assets in western countries and deny entry to that rear end in a top hat and his croonies. Why has that not already been done?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:In Libya, Qadaffi IS the regime. Remove him and there's nothing, Libya will need to build a new order from scratch. Gaddafi really is batshit crazy. There was a news some time ago of him deciding to dismantle the Libyan central government completely, leaving only regional governments. Gaddafi should be a tea party idol. Also, there is an Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
Doccers posted:Last I heard the Libyan diplomats were saying "Stay Out". Then you haven't been keeping up. There was a report 5 minutes ago on AJE and 4 hours ago on google news.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
This precise situation, where no one country has the mandate to interfere in the internal affairs of another, but the international community as a whole does, is what the UN Security Council is supposed to be for. Good thing they haven't even met about Libya yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Potrzebie posted:One thing that could be done would be to sieze assets in western countries and deny entry to that rear end in a top hat and his croonies. Why has that not already been done? I didn't think he *HAD* any assets in western countries, didn't we already seize them back under Reagon when we blew his airforce apart the first time? PlantRobot posted:Then you haven't been keeping up. There was a report 5 minutes ago on AJE and 4 hours ago on google news. Quite likely, it's a lot to keep up on when I'm already busy. If they're asking for a no-fly zone, get a UN resolution passed like right the gently caress now and get it done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Doccers posted:I didn't think he *HAD* any assets in western countries, didn't we already seize them back under Reagon when we blew his airforce apart the first time? It's a lot of arguing about rapidly developing events for a busy person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:31
|
|