|
Lascivious Sloth posted:No the funny thing is that uninformed people like you are suddenly popping into this thread ever since Libya hit mainstream media. To say this intervention is simply war porn proves you have no idea about what has been happening in Libya and that region. No, I've been following this conflict since it began. I have spent at least 3-5 hours each day reading articles about it online since the Libyan revolution flared up. And I didn't even say GBS posters were necessarily wrong about their opinion on the conflict, I simply said it is funny how opinions between traditionally pro-war and anti-war sources have made an almost complete 180 degree shift to opposite sides of the spectrum. I prefer to spend most of my time reading articles at Antiwar.com and the Future of Freedom Foundation (https://www.fff.org) where this "intervention" on Libya is being seen as foolhardy. As for myself, I still do not think this conflict will turn out as well as the supporters of it are hoping. And while Quaddafi is a scumbag who needs to go, I still feel like this is just another way the US and maybe some other Western countries can have an excuse to flex their muscles and attempt to exert greater dominance in another region (north Africa). ZetaReticuli49er fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Mar 24, 2011 |
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
Space Monster posted:Also, the CIA created the AIDS virus to kill off black people and give the continent to the U.S. since we need its resources! And I think 9/11 was an inside job.... (don't tell anyone what I said and you're going to have to start wearing a tin-foil hat like me in order to stop the government from finding out that I told you the truth about them!) cough http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html http://www.usislam.org/politics/America's%20list%20of%20terrorism.htm cough
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:Also, the CIA created the AIDS virus to kill off black people and give the continent to the U.S. since we need its resources! And I think 9/11 was an inside job.... (don't tell anyone what I said and you're going to have to start wearing a tin-foil hat like me in order to stop the government from finding out that I told you the truth about them!) Our governments always tell the truth and powerful people never plan questionable acts in secret. Who sounds ridiculous here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Competition posted:cough cough Hey there's no reputable citations there. cough Specifically, I've never heard anyone describe the Afghan government the Soviets put in after their invasion as being "democratically elected" with a straight face.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
ZetaReticuli49er posted:I prefer to spend most of my time reading articles at Antiwar.com and the Future of Freedom Foundation (https://www.fff.org) where this "intervention" on Libya is being seen as foolhardy. Huh, a place called antiwar.com is opposed to military action. That seems like a perfectly unbiased source on the matter. Also, it's stupid to have the same opinion on everything regardless of context. There are perfectly good reasons for normal dove-lobbyists to support action in Libya (ie, civilians were being massacred everytime Gaddafi took ground).
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:Also, the CIA created the AIDS virus to kill off black people and give the continent to the U.S. since we need its resources! And I think 9/11 was an inside job.... (don't tell anyone what I said and you're going to have to start wearing a tin-foil hat like me in order to stop the government from finding out that I told you the truth about them!) What is this nonsense? The Soviets weren't any angels (they weren't exactly supporting a democratic government in Afghanistan, and they were certainly heavy handed with their tactics), but it is common knowledge that the CIA covertly fomented and aided an insurgency to prolong a civil war there. That the CIA was (often illegally, even under US law) funding terrorists all over Central America to undermine actual democratic governments and backing brutal despots all over that region with arms, cash, and advice is also common knowledge, and the CIA's drug running has come to light in open court. Citing events in the past that included the CIA is not the same as making up bullshit conspiracy theories. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
CNN: Libyan government media trip goes wrong (Mar 24, 2011)- Worth watching to see the Gaddafi PR machine failing badly. The same trip from Sky News.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
trollstormur posted:ill address this when ive a computer handy, it's difficult to form coherent posts from a phone. Yo since I called you out on it, I'm looking at some Afgan history websites and it appears you're right, we did technically get involved in Afganistan prior to the Soviet invasion/intervention during a dispute/conflict with rival government powers there. The more you know....
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
Alright, here's some news. http://www.wam.ae/servlet/Satellite?c=WamLocEnews&cid=1300255413630&pagename=WAM/WAM_E_Layout quote:The UAE Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Highness Sheikh Abdulla bin Zayed Al Nahyan today issued a statement updating the status of the UAE's participation in support of UN resolution 1973. Looks like Biden grovelled superbly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
DeclaredYuppie posted:Yo since I called you out on it, I'm looking at some Afgan history websites and it appears you're right, we did technically get involved in Afganistan prior to the Soviet invasion/intervention during a dispute/conflict with rival government powers there. The more you know.... This part is true, although US involvement didn't ramp up until after the invasion. My objection is that the the Soviets invaded and killed the president of Afghanistan and installed their own leader. It can in no way be described as "coming to the aid of a democratically elected government."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
Short report from France24 on the rebels push west in early March that shows, I think, very well why this ended so disastrous for them and how repeating it would be a terrible idea. Also why Twitter reports do not necessarily reflect reality even if the person relaying the information is honest and has a contact on the frontlines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
Yay UAE and Turkey maybe on board. Wonder if there was some positive outcome for Bahrain in there too, behind closed doors?Competition posted:Syria isn't a candidate for civil war because it is one of the least demographically diverse Arab nations in pretty much every category, A civil war needs to fall upon dividing lines of some sort, yes there is a power imbalance where one small Islamic sect disproportionately holds the position of power but their numbers are so small that it simply cannot sustain a civil war. Some civil wars, like on the Balkans, are based on religion and ethnicity, but in others it's been the ideological divides which have been much more prominent. So far, it seems like it's just going to be a civil war or insurgency between those who want change and those who want the status quo, but we don't really know much about the real tensions in the country because they've been suppressed by emergency law, one-party rule and secret police for many, many years. Competition posted:Less of a civil war and more of a Yugoslavian-esque break up on steroids Competition posted:No the argument is that in Libya there is a distinct historical reason for why the rebellion has been so total in one part of the country and very hit and miss in another, it might have something to do with the former region having some kind of rebellion attempt every decade or so for the past 40 years. I'm not entirely sure that's the case, but if it is so, then you would be wrong - right? trollstormur posted:Afganistan is such a huge loving morass. SkoubyDoo posted:Our governments always tell the truth and powerful people never plan questionable acts in secret. Who sounds ridiculous here? Vir fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/africa/24minister.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss "...the army that rebel military leaders bragged about consists of only about 1,000 trained men" So time to send in the marines I guess....
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Breaking Via AJE "NATO has in fact taken over the action to impose a no fly zone over Libya."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
Baddog posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/africa/24minister.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss Actually for once we could send in our heavy mechanized stuff. Libya is 99% perfect tank country. It's where Rommel made his reputation after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Actually for once we could send in our heavy mechanized stuff. Libya is 99% perfect tank country. It's where Rommel made his reputation after all. You can take over as much sand as you like with your big guns, but you've got to take the cities and you've got to do it with as few civilian deaths as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
So Gaddaffi was right when he said there were just a few hundred armed criminals. The con that was pulled off here is quite amazing, I wonder which publicity firm was behind all those tweets claiming rebel victories and defections to the rebels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:So Gaddaffi was right when he said there were just a few hundred armed criminals. The officially defected units only account for 1000 or so and would probably only include troops in the east that defected in units, the militia is not enumerated since it is generally individuals or small groups. It, therefore, has nothing to do with the number of rebels bearing arms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:You can take over as much sand as you like with your big guns, but you've got to take the cities and you've got to do it with as few civilian deaths as possible. No poo poo. But it's just possible that using mechanized infantry for that job would be safer than just dropping JDAMs on stuff. Of course that's assuming there's a US ground deployment in Libya at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Baddog posted:"...the army that rebel military leaders bragged about consists of only about 1,000 trained men" They have thousands of untrained men though - the rebel officer I saw on the news just now was a computer engineer. Actually they have more people than guns, so if one guy gets killed, they can pass his gun on to the next guy; the rebel forces will expand by capture of enemy equipment. Some of the loyalist soldiers might also defect, but it'll be their training which is valuable, not their numbers. t3ch3 posted:You can take over as much sand as you like with your big guns, but you've got to take the cities and you've got to do it with as few civilian deaths as possible. Vir fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:The con that was pulled off here is quite amazing, I wonder which publicity firm was behind all those tweets claiming rebel victories and defections to the rebels. And its not '1000 men' it's 1000 trained men. The rest are ordinary people with guns, hence the chaos and losses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Vir posted:SkoubyDoo, the guy with the poorly contstructed strawman. In response to conflating any controversial allegation against our government together with all other crazy conspiracies in existence? Thanks, but I'll stay on the side of skepticism, not dismissing anything because I refuse to even consider it possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:No poo poo. But it's just possible that using mechanized infantry for that job would be safer than just dropping JDAMs on stuff. Of course that's assuming there's a US ground deployment in Libya at all. The one thing the Obama administration has said since the beginning of this is that there will be no US ground forces. I can definitely see a situation where other countries send in ground forces, but he's going to have a huge problem politically walking that statement back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
Vir posted:As noted earlier in the thread, flat desert warfare is similar to naval warfare, with the cities as ports, and the tanks as ships. What does that make of anti-tank helicopters, which are the bane of mechanized combat? Something like submarines?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:The one thing the Obama administration has said since the beginning of this is that there will be no US ground forces. I can definitely see a situation where other countries send in ground forces, but he's going to have a huge problem politically walking that statement back. Oddly enough if we had committed ground forces from the start he'd have more support, but having drawn the line in what is acceptable intervention he's simultaneously made this aggressive version of a no fly zone seem more reasonable and made troops on the ground that much more unpopular. I agree, it would be very difficult to try and expand the US mission at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Vir posted:They have thousands of untrained men though Did you watch that video that was just posted? Those guys don't count for poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:What does that make of anti-tank helicopters, which are the bane of mechanized combat? Something like submarines? No that'll be like helicopters with anti-surface missiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_Fennec Submarines would be sandworms from Dune. The proper battleships never made it past the crazy drawing board though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte Baddog posted:Did you watch that video that was just posted? Those guys don't count for poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Baddog posted:Did you watch that video that was just posted? Those guys don't count for poo poo. Do you ever get tired of being wrong or is it just a passion for you?Guys did you know poorly trained insurgent forces are completely useless? That's why the war in Afghanistan ended after 5 days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
Freigeist posted:Short report from France24 on the rebels push west in early March that shows, I think, very well why this ended so disastrous for them and how repeating it would be a terrible idea. Also why Twitter reports do not necessarily reflect reality even if the person relaying the information is honest and has a contact on the frontlines. This video only reinforces the disorganization of the rebels. No leadership and little experience. They have heart, but I don't see how they can overthrow Gaddafi without high level defections within the state army or ground support from NATO, which seems unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:cough It's even screwier when the Soviets were the ones who toppled the previous democratically elected government in Afghanistan, paving the way for the Taliban. Yeah Afghan history is crazy. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
farraday posted:Do you ever get tired of being wrong or is it just a passion for you?Guys did you know poorly trained insurgent forces are completely useless? That's why the war in Afghanistan ended after 5 days. haha ok. Gaddafi is just going to kill them all (and their families). And maybe all their friends too. That will stop it. Isn't that why we are over there, to protect them and keep their insurgency going? Going to be hard to do all that protecting just from the sky. Also these fellows appear to be extremely religious. Maybe its just me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
Baddog posted:haha ok. Sorry I couldn't get the gist of your stupid insinuation, could you just say what you mean?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
SkoubyDoo posted:This video only reinforces the disorganization of the rebels. No leadership and little experience. They have heart, but I don't see how they can overthrow Gaddafi without high level defections within the state army or ground support from NATO, which seems unlikely. Given that Libya has mandatory conscription, you'd think someone would start setting up some kind of ad-hoc structure. Hell, they probably have started figuring poo poo out by now, since that video was taken several weeks ago. Out of chaos comes order and all that. What this does highlight is that the LNC or whatever its calling itself doesn't know its rear end from a hole in the ground and is in charge of a building in Benghazi and little else, at least for the time being.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
farraday posted:Sorry I couldn't get the gist of your stupid insinuation, could you just say what you mean? I was told this was an uprising by the educated youth and professionals of Libya, and that there would be democracy and free punch and cookies afterwards in Tripoli.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
Baddog posted:I was told this was an uprising by the educated youth and professionals of Libya, and that there would be democracy and free punch and cookies afterwards in Tripoli. Religion is somehow incompatible with democracy, being young, and being professional?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
Baddog posted:I was told this was an uprising by the educated youth and professionals of Libya, and that there would be democracy and free punch and cookies afterwards in Tripoli. What the blue gently caress are you talking about? Nobody's said anything like this. Baddog posted:Also these fellows appear to be extremely religious. Maybe its just me. Everyone in the Middle East is pretty much "extremely religious" by Western standards so I don't understand the point you're trying (and failing) to make.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
Baddog posted:I was told this was an uprising by the educated youth and professionals of Libya, and that there would be democracy and free punch and cookies afterwards in Tripoli. Are you saying they can't handle democracy because they're faithful because ya know, that's what crazy racists said for every other movement in the region.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
Baddog posted:Gaddafi is just going to kill them all (and their families). And maybe all their friends too. That will stop it. How about their friends' friends, and their families, and Satan and his grandmother? The only thing the rebels have are numbers, morale and support form above. Sure, they can't just smother Gaddafi to death with their own corpses, but if they could, they would. They do need to get better organized. There are reports about the trained soldiers being reluctant to fight, but hopefully they can at least speed-train some of the volunteers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
redscare posted:Religion is somehow incompatible with democracy, being young, and being professional? Fundamentalist religion, yah. Carry on, I'm sure we aren't doing anything like creating another Taliban out of complete ignorance, its cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
Baddog posted:Also these fellows appear to be extremely religious. Maybe its just me. Your point is extremely religious people should be left to be slaughtered?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:55
|
|
