Nenonen posted:

Curious minds want to enquire, if the Sarkozy government goes fully in support of the Libyan opposition and they fall, how much of an egg to face would that be for him?

Leperflesh posted:

Jesus wept. If Israel sent fighter planes into libya to make airstrikes and shoot down (arabic, muslim) fighters, I think it'd spark off a full-scale middle-eastern war.

Short of deploying nuclear weapons, I can't think of a worse possible development.

Amandyke posted:

Yes yes, centuries in the making etc. What do you think the response would be if they approached the Libyan resistance counsel and offered their assistance? With their blessing do you think the same outcome would occur?

Leperflesh posted:

Jesus wept. If Israel sent fighter planes into libya to make airstrikes and shoot down (arabic, muslim) fighters, I think it'd spark off a full-scale middle-eastern war.

Short of deploying nuclear weapons, I can't think of a worse possible development.

ChaosSamusX posted:

Against Western Air superiority, conventional military victory is implausible if not outright impossible. Especially considering that they aren't doing so well already.

redscare posted:

Sarko seems like the sort of guy that would send the DeGaulle and a few wings of Rafales unilaterally instead

Jamsque posted:

This sounds like a job for a loosely-defined COALITION OF THE WILLING! Someone get Poland on the phone.

New Division posted:

Are we assuming that the establishment of any No-Fly-Zone will naturally transition into a ground interdiction campaign at this point? Because I don't think that keeping the Libyan Air Force grounded is going to be enough to hand the Libyan rebels victory. There's obvious deficiencies in their training, arms, and organization that are not going to be overcome in a matter of days. I certainly can't see them taking Tripoli anytime soon.

New Division posted:

edit: France and Britain both seem to be interested in lending a hand... anyone think they could intervene effectively on their own?

Nenonen posted:

That's what I'm wondering - is it a political suicide pact between Sarkozy and the rebs so that after this he's not going to back down from providing concrete support to them? But this sort of depends on the French domestic politics.

The next presidential elections will be next year and current polls show the ultra right wing candidate Marine Le Pen leading over Sarkozy at 23% against 21%. This doesn't mean much yet (even if elections were held now, they'd need over 50% of votes to win and I doubt Le Pen could gain that many voters on the second round), but failing with Libyans might taint the government's reputation. The main issue on the agenda for both Sarkozy and Le Pen, though, is TEH MUSLIMATIC MIGRANTS so maybe Sarko could count on the risk being bearable.

And if it DOES fail, he can say that his intention all along was to pre-empt the flock of TEH MUSLIMATIC REFUGEAS that would no doubt head to Europe if Gaddafi's battalions managed to crush the rebellion.

New Division posted:

Amandyke posted:

Intervene with ground forces? I don't know much about French armor but I do know that while the challenger 2 is a very effective tank, I doubt the British would be willing to risk losses with them to aid Libya. They have what, less than 400 of them? France doesn't fare much better in terms of the number of Leclerc tanks they have either, also less than 400.

That said considering Libya only has roughly 300 T-72's and more T-62's and T-55's the balance of power would be easily in the more modern British and French MBT's. I just don't think they'd be willing to commit.

Amandyke posted:

Intervene with ground forces? I don't know much about French armor but I do know that while the challenger 2 is a very effective tank, I doubt the British would be willing to risk losses with them to aid Libya. They have what, less than 400 of them? France doesn't fare much better in terms of the number of Leclerc tanks they have either, also less than 400.

That said considering Libya only has roughly 300 T-72's and more T-62's and T-55's the balance of power would be easily in the more modern British and French MBT's. I just don't think they'd be willing to commit.

Nenonen posted:

Some losses would definitely be expectable, but the 2003 Iraq war showed that a 1st world army can reliably defeat even a heavily armed 3rd world army with neglectable losses. And bear in mind, Iraq is about four times larger by population than Libya, and many parts of Libya are already out of Gaddafi's control.

A bigger issue would be planning, I think. For the last Iraq war the planning must have started in 1991, and plans were constantly updated. I doubt anyone has an up to date plan for the invasion of Libya ready. I'm sure many general staffs are working on those plans right now and an invasion could be launched, but it helps to have months to gather intelligence and refine the plan, rather than having to rush it. But some combat troops could probably be sent in to defend the bridgehead in advance while the main force was being assembled and plans refined. But at this moment I doubt that France or UK would seriously commit themselves to a land campaign.

Apology posted:

Honestly I don't see not having a no-fly zone working out any better than having a no-fly zone worked out in Kosovo and Iraq. No matter what anyone does, a poo poo-ton of people are going to die. Any possible edge the world can give the rebels should be given to them without all this dick-waving bullshit.

Sivias posted:

Who would we send sans a draft?

Apology posted:

Why can't the US just abstain from the NATO vote? Why can't the US just say, "Look, we're kind of broke right now, but if y'all want to help go right ahead, we won't stop you?" Oh, yeah, that would make the US look weak

Nenonen posted:

Here's an idea: the US could bribe persuade the Iraqi government to send a couple of brigades of 'peace keepers' to Libya, the logistics being provided by NATO. Being Arabs they wouldn't be considered so much of foreigners as the Europeans or Americans, and the Iraqi army is well trained and armed compared to Libyans. They have some M1A1 Abrams tanks already.

Amandyke posted:

Yes yes, centuries in the making etc. What do you think the response would be if they approached the Libyan resistance counsel and offered their assistance? With their blessing do you think the same outcome would occur?

Apology posted:

I guess we no longer have to pretend that the US is pro-Democracy, so that's one thing I guess.

Why can't the US just abstain from the NATO vote? Why can't the US just say, "Look, we're kind of broke right now, but if y'all want to help go right ahead, we won't stop you?" Oh, yeah, that would make the US look weak

Honestly I don't see not having a no-fly zone working out any better than having a no-fly zone worked out in Kosovo and Iraq. No matter what anyone does, a poo poo-ton of people are going to die. Any possible edge the world can give the rebels should be given to them without all this dick-waving bullshit.

Xandu posted:

It's not like the US threatened to veto , my understanding is that France/UK (the only other states I could imagine enforcing one) don't want to go forward without the US involved.

Besides, it makes way more sense to do it under a UN mandate than a NATO mandate.

Sivias posted:

Who would we send sans a draft?

New Division posted:

Yeah, but are the Russians and the Chinese going to let there be a UN mandate for intervention?

Petey posted:

No, it's speculators.

e: let me elaborate. There are two components to the price of a barrel of oil. There is what you might sloppily call the primary price, which is something like a rough equilibrium between supply and demand at a healthy profit margin. Then there is the speculative price, which is a function of a futures contract placed by speculators, who are essentially trading agreements to pay what they believe the price of oil to be in the future. This fluctuates wildly as traders do.

Almost no single thing you read about actually affects the day to day supply of oil, at least with the immediacy it obtains at the price at the pump (even if the strait of Hormuz was closed entirely, oil shipped yesterday would still take some time to arrive at refineries, and then be refined, and be available). What affects day to day prices is huge, tremendous amounts of speculative trading on the stock market. Some economists have put as much as 60% of the cost of oil at the pump is actually just inflation based on these futures speculations, as opposed to a more "natural" price more closely related to supply/demand.

e2: more reading for a lay audience- http://money.howstuffworks.com/oil-speculation-raise-gas-price1.htm

L-Boned posted:

Anyone have an updated link to the current state of Libya in regards to areas of control?

Al Jazeera posted:

7:36am

Gaddafi has forced foreign migrants to fight in the ranks of the Libyan forces that remain loyal to him, according to the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR).

Thousands of migrants from other African countries have been sent to the front line or used as human shield for Libyan soldiers, they say.

"The life of African migrants in Libya is under real threat," Sliman Bouchuiguir, the LLHR's general-secretary, said.

He called on the UN Security Council to intervene to stop the practice, arguing that it violates basic migrant rights under international law.

Sivias posted:

Woah. Tokyo just got loving *wrecked*.

E: 7.9 on the richter scale. For reference, an 8 magnatude earthquake is seen only once every 100 years and is considered 'major'. And a tsunami is on it's way. Is there a thread about this yet?

Xandu posted:

It's not like the US threatened to veto , my understanding is that France/UK (the only other states I could imagine enforcing one) don't want to go forward without the US involved.

Besides, it makes way more sense to do it under a UN mandate than a NATO mandate.

Namarrgon posted:

A lot of people suddenly think Gaddafi is still going to win this? I think even if he was unchallenged militarily (he isn't, remember that most if not all of the rebel's military will be in the east, Zawiyah was relatively undefended) he simply doesn't have the manpower to retake Libya. It would be like the Netherlands trying to occupy Germany; sure our troops could take a big city maybe, but what if you want to take the next one? You have to move out and the former conquered city simply rebels.

CeeJee posted:

The NFZ also has an endless list of difficult questions that need to be addressed before the first images of civilians killed by NATO start appear:
-Will planes of the Libyan state airline on scheduled flights be shot down as well ?
-What about helicopters ? And what if they now start carrying Red Crescent markings ?
-Will air defense installations be attacked if rebels taken prisoner are put next to them ?

quote:

The focus may be on Libya, but Saudi Arabia is today bracing itself for a "day of rage". A coalition of liberals, rights activists, moderate Sunni Islamists and Shia Muslims have called for reform and set up a Facebook page that has attracted more than 30,000 people.
The government, however, forbids protests and the big Saudi cities are already flooded with police.
As Reuters reports:
"The government made those views clear late on Thursday, when police dispersed Shia protests in the town of Qatif in the oil-producing Eastern province. Shots were heard from the area where some 200 people were demonstrating.
Dozens of uniformed police patrolled main squares in Riyadh as scores of police cars toured the streets. A helicopter circled above one city mosque and busloads of police were parked nearby, significantly raising the security presence. There was also a heavy police presence in the second city of Jeddah.
If protests take place, they might start up after noon prayers at 1 p. (1000 GMT) or after evening prayers around 5 pm (1400 GMT)."
For background, here's a piece from our Middle East editor, Ian Black.

quote:

For more on the background to and implications of today's Saudi protests, here is a piece from a Saudi blogger who warns:

quote:

"If the government uses violence to crack down on protesters, this will fuel their anger and push them to protest even more and in larger numbers in the future."

And this from the Guardian's Terry Macalister, who looks at what protests could mean for the Saudi oil industry and the global oil market.