Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »

Pedrophile: Feb 25, 2011; by angerbot

St1cky posted:

I know there's UN forces on the ground, I'm just pointing out that the US is selective about how they approach these things. Of course, no one in the US has any idea what's going on there and I only have an idea because I've started using BBC to get my foreign news instead of our "news" sources.

Right now it's limited, but it always sounds like it's going to be some quick deal where we drop a few bombs and flex some muscle and save the day. I really don't mind blowing up some tanks and keeping the skies clear, but I just wonder what happens next if the rebels win and can't resolve how to run the country themselves. The US really can't afford to gets itself involved in trying to build a third nation.

Of course the inverse could also be true, the rebels have no choice but to be democratic if they want the bombs to keep falling.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 05:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 18:34

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Did somebody say ground war?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us_deploys_low_flying_attack_planes_in_libya/2011/03/26/AF9grPqB_story.html?wprss=rss_middle-east posted:

The U.S. military dramatically stepped up its assault on Libyan government ground forces over the weekend, launching its first missions with AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft designed to strike enemy ground troops and supply convoys.

The use of the aircraft, during days of heavy fighting in which the momentum seemed to swing in favor of the rebels, demonstrated how allied military forces have been drawn deeper into the chaotic fight in Libya. A mission that initially seemed to revolve around establishing a no-fly zone has become focused on halting advances by government ground forces in and around key coastal cities.

The AC-130s, which fly low and slow over the battlefield and are typically more vulnerable to enemy fire than fast-moving fighter jets, were deployed only after a week of sustained coalition attacks on Libyan government air defenses and radar sites. These aircraft, armed with heavy machine guns and cannons that rake the ground, allow strikes on dug-in Libyan ground forces and convoys in closer proximity to civilians.

The planes are being used to step up pressure on Libyan ground troops, who have retreated from the rebel�s advance and fortified around several cities east of Tripoli, the capital. �Our strategy continues to be to pressure them where we think it�s going to give us the best effect,� said Vice Adm. William Gortney, director of the Pentagon�s Joint Staff, referring to the use of the new aircraft. �The number of the strike sorties that you saw, I think, is a direct result of that.�

Gortney emphasized that the military was not using the planes to facilitate a rebel advance. The Washington Post learned of their deployment last week but withheld reporting the information until their first missions at the request of U.S. military officials.

Military officials consider AC-130s and A-10s well suited to attacks in built-up areas, although their use has led to civilian deaths. Unlike fighter jets and bombers, which typically carry 500- or 1,000-pound bombs, the AC-130s and A-10s deliver more discriminate but still devastating machine-gun fire. �They offer weapons that you can meter against a much smaller area and not risk as much collateral damage,� said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who played a key role in overseeing the initial U.S. attack on Afghanistan in 2002.

AC-130s were used to great effect during the two U.S. offensives in Fallujah, a stronghold of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq in the early days of the Iraq war. In Afghanistan, the military considers them particularly effective against entrenched militants, and commanders have frequently complained that they are in too short supply. The gunships, developed from a Hercules C-130 transport plane for use in Vietnam, put pilots at greater risk than fighter jets, but they have been used in virtually every U.S. military combat operation since then.

In Libya, �we are determined to step up the mission, to attack his tanks and [troop] columns every day until he withdraws,� a French official said of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi and the forces loyal to him.

The AC-130s, which are flying from a base in Italy, were requested by Gen. Carter Ham, the senior U.S. general overseeing the operation, and are likely to continue flying over Libya in the coming days as allied forces attempt to increase the pressure on Gaddafi�s ground forces.

�The longer it lasts, the more danger of civilian casualties,� said a Western diplomat whose country is involved in the attacks. He warned that one errant missile strike against a hospital or a house full of children could have a deeply polarizing effect on the fragile alliance of NATO and Arab nations.

The tougher and more risky mission to stop Gaddafi�s ground troops from attacking key cities has quickly overshadowed the less challenging task of stopping the Libyan dictator from launching his aircraft to attack rebels. The ground attack mission also opened up some rifts among coalition partners in NATO and Arab nations, which were reluctant to support attacks that could cause civilian casualties. And it has led some U.S. lawmakers to accuse the Obama administration of inserting the U.S. military in the middle of a complex ground fight between rebels and loyalist forces without a clear exit strategy.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 05:38

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Cioran posted:

What does arming the rebels mean when floated as a possibility in this conflict? Don't arms above the level of rifles take significant training(and thus time) to use safely and effectively? So is it just rifles and ammunition?

The rebels do have all kinds of weaponry, from tanks to artillery to AA missiles to AT missiles. Supposedly they also have some trained or semi-trained people to use them. Maybe. If they're competent, they are also training more of them as we speak. They might not have specially trained crews to man all the tanks they have which would be needed to use them for more than fun rides, or qualified supporting crews with spares needed to give mechanical maintenance for them if they want to march all the way to Tripoli, though.

However, having some weaponry and munitions doesn't equate to having enough weaponry and munitions. Or being in good condition. Things like anti-tank guided missiles have a maximum shelf-life after which they should be renewed, and we just don't know how well kept the Libyan army ammo depots outside Tripoli are. So all in all, the rebels would probably benefit from having more weapons and ammo. Especially of a more modern kind. Also non-weapon equipment such as radio sets, night vision goggles, high quality maps and GPS devices would probably be useful.

Also,

"Stranded on a Pacific island with 11 naked men I learned everything I know about love." -John F. Kennedy

# ? Mar 29, 2011 05:43

Lareous: Feb 19, 2008

Xandu posted:

Did somebody say ground war?

I love A-10's. I've heard the gun spin up, it is some terrifying poo poo no doubt.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 05:43

St1cky: Aug 16, 2005; Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Mike Alden, supergenius.

farraday posted:

I applaud your efforts to reduce your ignorance, keep at it. Since you have been following it, perhaps you could clarify why you think they're obviously comparable and that action within the boundaries we've set for Libya would be effective in Cote d'Ivoire.

I'm pointing out that Obama is claiming that we're acting as humanitarians by bombing Libya when we pretty much ignore a lot of other problems around the world. I guess i'm just a little cynical towards our foreign policy.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 05:45

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

My understanding of the situation in Ivory Coast is that Gbagbo will be ousted pretty soon. The ~~rebels~~ armed forces of the legal government have been making steady progress.

BBC posted:

Forces loyal to Ivory Coast's UN-backed president-elect Alassane Ouattara say they have launched an offensive aimed at sealing the border with Liberia.

The ex-rebels have swept down from their northern powerbase and claim to have taken the western town of Duekoue.

They accuse rival leader Laurent Gbagbo of importing fighters from Liberia.

The pro-Ouattara fighters have also begun fighting in two other areas. The UN estimates one million people have already fled the violence.

Pro-Ouattara fighters, known as the New Forces, already control the north of the country and have taken four towns in the west.

If confirmed, Duekoue would be the fifth and biggest town to fall so far.

Pro-Gbagbo troops have lost every battle with the New Forces since last November's election, says the BBC's John James in the central town of Bouake.

He says they are also now struggling to contain a guerrilla force, known as the Invisible Commandos, who have taken control of the northern part of the main city, Abidjan.

Mr Gbagbo refuses to step down despite international observers saying Mr Ouattara won the election.

Seydou Ouattara, a military spokesman for Alassane Ouattara, told the Associated Press that his forces had taken Duekoue and had moved southwards to surround the town of Guiglo.

"Today's operation will prevent Gbagbo from recruiting and training Liberians as he has been doing," he said.

So it doesn't truly compare to the situation in Libya a few weeks back.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 05:51

sweeptheleg: Nov 26, 2007

St1cky posted:

I'm pointing out that Obama is claiming that we're acting as humanitarians by bombing Libya when we pretty much ignore a lot of other problems around the world. I guess i'm just a little cynical towards our foreign policy.

You should really check out the Aljezera blog on lybyia. It is an extremely well documented timeline, with plenty of horrifying youtube videos. It was the clearest picture of what was happening for a long while. Its painfully obvious the people who weren't paying attention until recently.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 05:51

Mad Doctor Cthulhu: Mar 3, 2008

St1cky posted:

I know there's UN forces on the ground, I'm just pointing out that the US is selective about how they approach these things. Of course, no one in the US has any idea what's going on there and I only have an idea because I've started using BBC to get my foreign news instead of our "news" sources.

Right now it's limited, but it always sounds like it's going to be some quick deal where we drop a few bombs and flex some muscle and save the day. I really don't mind blowing up some tanks and keeping the skies clear, but I just wonder what happens next if the rebels win and can't resolve how to run the country themselves. The US really can't afford to gets itself involved in trying to build a third nation.

I think that's why we're letting Britain and France do the heavy lifting. If things go bad, it's their mess to help out and settle and we can walk away with the 'we can throw in a little help if you want' sort of deal. We've got enough poo poo to deal with and having our allies who are neighbors anyway help absolves us of anything really miserable. After all, we're to blame for two unstable countries. No sense making it a third.

I think it's the perfect solution, honestly. We help but we don't get our hands dirty. It's the best that could happen after the foreign relations disaster of the last decade.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 05:52

quadratic: May 2, 2002; f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c

Ayman Mohyeldin was on C-SPAN earlier today.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 05:53

A Winner is Jew: Feb 14, 2008; by exmarx

Xandu posted:

Did somebody say ground war?

My first post in the thread about a week ago. :smug:

A Winner is Jew on 3/22 posted:

While I don't think we'll see marines landing on the beach off Tripoli any time soon, the insertion of special forces that will help with training and tactical aspects for the rebels wouldn't be too far out, and has probably already happened based upon a few reports thus far. With that I would also assume some form of pinpoint air strikes called in from those same special forces painting targets on the ground (which I think has already happened), and possibly bombing columns of Qaddafi's troops that are exposed, but outside that at this point would be all I would expect the US to do. Without peacekeepers on the ground there really shouldn't be a need for US regulars (or semi regulars) on the ground like there was in Somalia, even if there was a faltering rebel column in need.

If you recall this was basically what the US did with Afghanistan, and that part of being there went pretty well IIRC.

St1cky posted:

I'm pointing out that Obama is claiming that we're acting as humanitarians by bombing Libya when we pretty much ignore a lot of other problems around the world. I guess i'm just a little cynical towards our foreign policy.

I too am usually massively cynical about our foreign policy being a US citizen, but this is one of those times where I find myself without that cynicism though. Obama has really done exactly what any US president should have done given the same circumstances, which is using air power to ward off a highly probably genocide while at the same time leveling the playing field for people seeking democracy against a tyrant and all around universally recognized "bad guy".

Also about your concern when it comes to if the rebels will enact a stable government, this is really why the US is now stepping into a support role with major players responsible for that phase being European nations since they are just on the other side of the Mediterranean with Libya and will have a lot more to loose if they gently caress it up.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 06:01

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

sweeptheleg posted:

Aljezera blog on lybyia

You win the forum prize for the most creative spelling of Libya. Bonus points for Aljezera. Congrats! :woop:

# ? Mar 29, 2011 06:02

Lascivious Sloth: Apr 26, 2008; by sebmojo

He meant check out Al-jizz-era about Labia.. :downsrim:

# ? Mar 29, 2011 06:07

Jut: May 16, 2005; by Ralp

So the UN have officially taken sides in the war.
I thought the resolution only entitled the UN forces to protect civilian areas, not to aid the rebels who are now taking the fight into civilian areas.
We should be, preventing CQ's forces from bombarding civilian areas
We should NOT be giving rebels air support as they press on to CQ held cities.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 06:25

Baddog: May 12, 2001

Nuclearmonkee posted:

Keep your logic out of this okay? Going in and preventing a dictator from exterminating his own civilian opposition with secret police, military, and mercenary forces while having the backing of the international community is obviously much worse than attacking some random guy who we don't like with the excuse of he "Supports Terrorism�" and has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTIOOOON*

*Presence of WMDs not guaranteed.

I mean who cares if it ends with a few tens of thousands of brown people dead and a shattered uprising against a cruel and demonstrably unstable dictator who controls a shitload of wealth.

Hey, you do know that Saddam Hussein killed almost a million of his own people, not even counting the Iran-Iraq war which killed another million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

Estimates of up to 300,000 Kurds killed with poison gas and other attacks, up to 200,000 killed in the '91 uprising, plus hundreds of thousands in just the day-to-day operations of Hussein's Iraq.

So your whole comparison is pretty lol.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 06:29

IRQ: Sep 9, 2001; SUCK A DICK, DUMBSHITS!

Jut posted:

So the UN have officially taken sides in the war.
I thought the resolution only entitled the UN forces to protect civilian areas, not to aid the rebels who are now taking the fight into civilian areas.
We should be, preventing CQ's forces from bombarding civilian areas
We should NOT be giving rebels air support as they press on to CQ held cities.

Why not?

And what on earth did you think the UN resolution was meant to do? It was always about helping the rebels depose Khadaffi and you had to have your head in the sand further than he does to genuinely think otherwise.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 06:31

Narmi: Feb 26, 2008

Jut posted:

So the UN have officially taken sides in the war.
I thought the resolution only entitled the UN forces to protect civilian areas, not to aid the rebels who are now taking the fight into civilian areas.
We should be, preventing CQ's forces from bombarding civilian areas
We should NOT be giving rebels air support as they press on to CQ held cities.

How exactly did you imagine they would protect civilian areas? Build a giant bubble around them to stop the shelling and Gaddafi's troops entering?

Also, by doing so, by taking out the troops hostile to the civilians, they are going to help the rebels indirectly. It's a by-product of the UN Resolution that everyone knew was going to happen.

Narmi fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Mar 29, 2011

# ? Mar 29, 2011 06:45

Suntory BOSS: Apr 17, 2006

Operation Iraqi Liberation, Operation Invade Libya, Operation something-something Ivory Coast... One of these things isn't fitting into the acronym-based naming scheme.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 06:46

quadratic: May 2, 2002; f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c

In light of the Time/Newsweek discussion a few days back, I thought I'd mention this really good Economist subscription deal: $12 for 12 issues (auto-renewing at the same rate)

$52/year is the, by far, the cheapest rate I've ever seen for the Economist.

Suntory BOSS posted:

Operation Iraqi Liberation, Operation Invade Libya, Operation something-something Ivory Coast... One of these things isn't fitting into the acronym-based naming scheme.

COalition to free ivory COAst

# ? Mar 29, 2011 06:49

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

quadratic posted:

COalition to free ivory COAst

No blood for chocolate.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 06:50

Jut: May 16, 2005; by Ralp

Narmi posted:

How exactly did you imagine they would protect civilian areas? Build a giant bubble around them to stop the shelling and Gaddafi's troops entering?

By bombing troops that were shelling civilian areas, and any troops moving on civilian areas. The UN forces are going one step further though, by providing air support for the rebels as they attack CQ held cities.
It's alright saying "well that's what the resolution really ment", but it didn't say that, it specifically talked about preventing civilian causalities, NOT taking sides in a civil war. If anything, allowing the rebels to press on CQ held cities is going to increase civilian causalities.
Preventing fighting from occurring, and forcing a stalemate followed by a return to the table would have been the most desirable solution.

It's important to note that we know very little about these rebels, and what will happen to the country, or people seen to be sympathetic to CQ (i.e. his tribe) if CQ is overthrown. We don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to helping out rebels, as they usually end up biting us in the rear end at some point in the future.

Edit: The resolution specifically calls for the forcing of a ceasefire
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12782972

Jut fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Mar 29, 2011

# ? Mar 29, 2011 06:57

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Gaddafi's continued grip on power poses a threat to the civilians in the areas he controls.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 06:59

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q

tldr:@2:45 I'm too ill-informed to talk eloquently about Libyan internal politics, so I'll pretend overthrowing Gaddafi will lead to a radical Islamist government.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:02

Jut: May 16, 2005; by Ralp

Xandu posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q

tldr:@2:45 I'm too ill-informed to talk eloquently about Libyan internal politics, so I'll pretend overthrowing Gaddafi will lead to a radical Islamist government.

At the end of the day we don't know WHAT will take the place of CQ's government. A Radical Islam Govt is one possibility amongst others.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:07

Chortles: Dec 29, 2008

My reaction: "AC-130 is in the air!"

It should be noted though Jut that a negotiated "safe" exit for Gaddafi is still on the table, whether or not the TNC approves.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:08

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Jut posted:

At the end of the day we don't know WHAT will take the place of CQ's government. A Radical Islam Govt is one possibility amongst others.

And I think it's simplistic to assume it's equally plausible. The Libyan Islamist movement has long been on the decline (with many members of LIFG renouncing Islamism) and is only really popular in a couple pockets of the country (mainly Darnah). Al Qaeda has never maintained a real presence in the country and if we do end up with a power vacuum, for reasons to detailed to get into here, it would actually make it harder for foreign Islamist groups to establish a presence.

There's been zero indication that Islamists, let alone violent Islamists, play any role with the temporary government in the east and there's been widespread support for an American/European intervention, which we would not see if there was widespread Islamist sentiments.

edit: there was actually one former Libyan Islamist group trying to assert a role in the revolution....from London.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:14

Jut: May 16, 2005; by Ralp

Chortles posted:

My reaction: "AC-130 is in the air!"

It should be noted though Jut that a negotiated "safe" exit for Gaddafi is still on the table, whether or not the TNC approves.

And that's an avenue that should be pursued. My concern would be that if CQ leaves, we will see oppression towards those tribes seen favourable towards CQ's regime, just as in Iraq we saw violence between Saddam's Shiite supporters and the Sunni majority.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:15

Lascivious Sloth: Apr 26, 2008; by sebmojo

Jut posted:

At the end of the day we don't know WHAT will take the place of CQ's government. A Radical Islam Govt is one possibility amongst others.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Are there any other arbitrary statements of fact you'd like to impart with?

At the end of the day, not deposing Gad WILL maintain the power of an Insane Dictator Govt. durp durp

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:17

Jut: May 16, 2005; by Ralp

Xandu posted:

And I think it's simplistic to assume it's equally plausible. The Libyan Islamist movement has long been on the decline (with many members of LIFG renouncing Islamism) and is only really popular in a couple pockets of the country (mainly Darnah). Al Qaeda has never maintained a real presence in the country and if we do end up with a power vacuum, for reasons to detailed to get into here, it would actually make it harder for foreign Islamist groups to establish a presence.

There's been zero indication that Islamists, let alone violent Islamists, play any role with the temporary government in the east and there's been widespread support for an American/European intervention, which we would not see if there was widespread Islamist sentiments.

Given the choice between being crushed by CQ (as was the case a couple of weeks ago), and western support, anyone would choose western support (just as the Mujahideen did in Afghanastan).
We've already seen the MB in Egypt secure their share of power by using a "vote for the thing we want or god will punish you" line to sway a vote that put them in a favourable position, instead of allowing a secular vote. When push comes to shove, people with invested interests will do what they can to secure as much power as possible, and the "god" card is a pretty strong player.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:19

Jut: May 16, 2005; by Ralp

Lascivious Sloth posted:

Thanks Captain Obvious. Are there any other arbitrary statements of fact you'd like to impart with?

At the end of the day, not deposing Gad WILL maintain the power of an Insane Dictator Govt. durp durp

Ever heard the saying "Better the enemy you know..."?
Iraq had a complete bastard in charge, but what's left afterwards isn't exactly an improvement on the situation. The country is still a violent mess nearly a decade after the invasion, mostly because there wasn't a good plan in place for what to do when he was overthrown.
Afghanistan is still a mess, with the Taliban still proving to be a pain in the rear end.

Can you give an example of where overthrowing a dictator in the middle east didn't lead to a huge mess?

At the end of the day though, it's not our place to be judge, jury and executioner over which insane dictators get to hold power, and those that get to keep power.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:27

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Jut posted:

We've already seen the MB in Egypt secure their share of power by using a "vote for the thing we want or god will punish you" line to sway a vote that put them in a favourable position, instead of allowing a secular vote. When push comes to shove, people with invested interests will do what they can to secure as much power as possible, and the "god" card is a pretty strong player.

And yet they haven't any secured power yet, we don't know if people voted yes on the constitutional amendment because of the MB or because they didn't want the military council to be in charge for another six months to a year. And even if they do secure power, Egypt will undoubtedly be a better place with a more accountable government.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:34

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

Holy hell that speech. Did Obama just throw a bunch of George W. Bush speech transcripts and Paul Wolfowitz musings into a blender and recite whatever came out? I bet y'all can't get better than 50% in figuring out which of these stupid statements were made by Stupid rear end in a top hat #42 or Stupid rear end in a top hat #43. :911:

"America is a Nation with a mission - and that mission... comes from our most basic beliefs."
"In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies � nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey � all of whom have fought by our side for decades."
"The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable - and it is not carried forward by our power alone. "
"Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East"
"He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world"
"Of course, there is no question that those people � and the world � will be better off with him out of power."
"Getting rid of this dictator is the right thing to do and the world is a better place without him."
"The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. "
"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace."

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Mar 29, 2011

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:41

Competition: Apr 3, 2006; by Fistgrrl

Jut posted:

And that's an avenue that should be pursued. My concern would be that if CQ leaves, we will see oppression towards those tribes seen favourable towards CQ's regime, just as in Iraq we saw violence between Saddam's Shiite supporters and the Sunni majority.

What?

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:42

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

Competition posted:

What?

Oh come on, he got it backwards but the point remains, that violent Balkans-style ethno-religious conflict frequently occurs in artificially delimited former colonies when strongman dictators are removed.

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Mar 29, 2011

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:45

Jut: May 16, 2005; by Ralp

Competition posted:

What?

Sorry wrong way around.
In short Saddam's govt was favourable towards the Sunni minority, at the expense of the Shiite majority. Following his overthrow, there was a backlash towards Sunni's that still continues today.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/17/politics/washingtonpost/main6216395.shtml

It wouldn't surprise me at all if we see a similar backlash towards CQ's favoured tribes.

Jut fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Mar 29, 2011

# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:49

Wandle Cax: Dec 15, 2006

Jut posted:

Ever heard the saying "Better the enemy you know..."?

The saying is actually "Better the devil you know", fyi.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 08:08

Lascivious Sloth: Apr 26, 2008; by sebmojo

Jut posted:

At the end of the day though, it's not our place to be judge, jury and executioner over which insane dictators get to hold power, and those that get to keep power.

That's right; it's the United Nations prerogative to take humanitarian action. They did. This isn't a US led action, it's a UN sanctioned intervention. Deal with it.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 08:14

Jut: May 16, 2005; by Ralp

Lascivious Sloth posted:

That's right; it's the United Nations prerogative to take humanitarian action. They did. This isn't a US led action, it's a UN sanctioned intervention. Deal with it.

I never said this was a US led action. I've said that the UN intervention force have gone beyond the limits set by the resolution.

Jut fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Mar 29, 2011

# ? Mar 29, 2011 08:18

Chortles: Dec 29, 2008

Jut posted:

And that's an avenue that should be pursued. My concern would be that if CQ leaves, we will see oppression towards those tribes seen favourable towards CQ's regime, just as in Iraq we saw violence between Saddam's Shiite supporters and the Sunni majority.

Emphasis on exit, though.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 08:27

CeeJee: Dec 4, 2001; Oven Wrangler

Jut posted:

I never said this was a US led action. I've said that the UN intervention force have gone beyond the limits set by the resolution.

And it will still have to expanded considerably before the rebels have a chance of going all the way to Tripoli.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 08:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 18:34

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Live Blogs March 29th
Guardian
BBC
AJE
LibyaFeb17.com

cioxx posted:

Here's a curated list of Twitter personalities I'm working on. Some of them from Brown Moses suggestions throughout the thread.
http://twitter.com/revolister/libya

Cioxx, you might want to add NicRobertsonCNN to that list as well, he's in Tripoli at the moment, and mainly posts about that.

# ? Mar 29, 2011 09:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »