|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:I meant the real UNSC not those positions they give to countries to make them feel important. You appear to be confused about how the UN security council works. The permanent members have veto power, but they cannot pass a resolution without the rotating members. Without a majority of votes in favor, the resolution would not have passed. Certainly all five permanent members have a lot of influence, but it's retarded to suggest that they are the only ones that matter. quote:Also I stated that in response to a claim that it was a UN decision rather than a NATO one. Clearly the three NATO powers with actual political weight were for it. This is a logical fallacy. I'm sorry but just because the three permanent members that were in favor are also members of NATO does not mean that this was a NATO imperative. No more than pointing out that all three permanent members in favor are also signatories of the international anti-Whaling treaties means that the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya is a conspiracy to spread anti-whaling doctrine to North Africa. quote:No matter what you say, NATO countries are doing the bombing whether the rest of NATO agrees or not. Therefore this is a NATO mission. This is another logical fallacy, and stupid on its face. It was in fact a very close vote for NATO to agree to take over the coordination of the NFZ, one that could easily have failed, and until that vote took place it was not a NATO action. Could not be, by definition of the NATO charter and rules. Moreover, "whether the rest of NATO agrees or not" is precisely wrong. If the rest of NATO disagreed, then it would by definition not be a NATO-approved operation, by definition. quote:My point still stands so stop making baseless accusations about my theory without developing a level of reading comprehension that rivals your ability to twist information to somehow legitimize this "humanitarian" intervention. This isn't about reading comprehension. You are promoting a theory that is stupid on its face, contrary to obvious facts, illogical, and based on an obvious paranoid fantasy about NATO that is, perhaps, a little bit understandable given the decades of anti-NATO propaganda that your (I assume) home country has subjected you to for most of your life. Nonetheless, since you apparently have access to the same Internet as the rest of us, your continued ignorance is inexcusable. Go read some unbiased sources and understand that the rest of the world no longer revolves around trying to outflank Russia's strategic interests. NATO didn't decide to attack Libya, it had to be dragged kicking into its current reluctant role as coordinator, and it has no interests in getting a base in Libya; and even if it did, that would not at all invalidate the legitimacy or correctness in doing whatever it takes to save innocent civilians being brutally murdered en-masse by a literally insane dictator.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:I meant the real UNSC not those positions they give to countries to make them feel important. You mean the one that includes China and Russia but only 3 of the 28 members of NATO? Or is there some other real UN Security Council where Canada, Slovenia and Luxembourg get together and scheme to screw Russia out of its precious Beet and Rye Bread stockpiles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 06:14
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:You're making statements that are factually incorrect and then try to wiggle your way out of being called on it by twisting your own words, so how can you expect people to listen to your opinion. I was making a statement that was factually correct. You chose to bring up an irrelevant technicality, because had Russia or China voted "no", the rest of those votes would not even matter. In response to your statement about the conspiracy, this situation favors Russia as well, because its oil companies will be able to invest in Libya's previously state owned behemoths. However, unlike NATO, Russia does not have plans to establish permanent bases in Libya, which according to historical precedent is exactly what will happen after the war is over. What is it with the lame attacks against Russia? I am not making comments about colonialism, eugenics, and all the brown people killing that your countries seem to enjoy so much, so you can just gently caress off with that garbage. Tovarisch Rafa fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Apr 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 06:14
|
|
|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:
It's already there, cunningly abandoned by the US in 1970 as if they knew it would be used 40 years later  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelus_Air_Base
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
Wow, I'm amazed at how confident everyone is in the motivations of England, France and good ol' Unlce Sam. After all, why would things turn out the way they have in roughly 99% of previous interventions? Of course I don't have "proof" of how things will turn out in the future, just a lot of experience watching the ways these things unfold, and I know counts for literally nothing. That's fine. Since you all have to seem a much better grip on history than me, I guess I'll sit back and watch as it turns into a giant clusterfuck and you all go from denial to backpedaling and eventually claim you never supported any part of the Libyan intervention. Maybe we'll even get a 51st state. I look forward to touring East Carolina soon. Edit: what was I thinking, making wild allegations that something shady and untoward was afoot? In fact, John McCain is meeting with the rebels right now, and such a trustworthy and honorable personage would never get involved in anything that wasn't a purely humanitarian exercise. Carry on. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Apr 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 07:35
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Wow, I'm amazed at how confident everyone is in the motivations of England, France and good ol' Unlce Sam. After all, why would things turn out the way they have in roughly 99% of previous interventions? Of course I don't have "proof" of how things will turn out in the future, just a lot of experience watching the ways these things unfold, and I know counts for literally nothing. That's fine. Part of these government officials job requirements is meeting with different countries, also john mccain has been in politics since the stone age. I mean I'm an American and I'll be honest, between the USSR and the US we stepped on a lot of other countries just trying to one up each other, but unlike corrupt communists we can actually fire our leaders and change our government.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 08:26
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:but unlike corrupt communists we can actually fire our leaders and change our government. Meet the new boss, same as old boss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 08:30
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Meet the new boss, same as old boss. 'All right guys, let's try it again. We'll get it right this time!'
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 08:31
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Meet the new boss, same as old boss. Let me put it this way. America may be corrupt, but at least we have standards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
farraday posted:
Are bullets not going to fly straight through the fence they strapped to the side of that truck?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 08:33
|
|
|
Jut posted:Are bullets not going to fly straight through the fence they strapped to the side of that truck? Sheet metal is better than nothing, make do with what you got.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 08:35
|
|
|
Jut posted:Are bullets not going to fly straight through the fence they strapped to the side of that truck? Those bullet holes are just painted on, look how carefully they placed to look randomly apart from each other, never right next to another.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 08:39
|
|
|
The ideal construction of shed-van would use a blow up doll with a wig and a fake steering wheel on the passenger side, they just switch the licence plates to a nation that drives on the other side of the road and you cannot lose!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 08:49
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:Sheet metal is better than nothing, make do with what you got. I dunno, if bullets are going to fly through it anyway, then the extra weight may just make it an easier target.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 09:01
|
|
|
http://s869.photobucket.com/albums/ab257/Mullen2010/Photos/?action=view¤t=PD_0025.jpg&newest=1 http://www.flickr.com/photos/expertinfantry/5419941887/ If it's stupid but works, it isn't stupid. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 09:57
|
|
|
Technically a bottle of petrol with a diesel soaked rag is Stupid as are petrol soaked rugs/carpets. Both can really gently caress up armour if used right though. To be honest I'm somewhat shocked we haven't heard a story about a rebel who tried building a trebuchet to hurl running chainsaws and it all went horribly wrong. That would be my first plan if I was stuck in a warzone surrounded by people pulling Home Alone poo poo out of their arses to try and survive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 10:05
|
|
|
I'm surprised it took this longer for them to figure it out. Then again, there's no internet so this is probably the first time we've seen this out of Misurata. Now, if they can combine those pickup trucks with the Hind rocket launchers with this, it'll look like something straight out of Car Wars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 12:49
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I think they do, actually. How many have been used in Pakistan? Probably thousands of sorties by now, with perhaps a dozen friendly-fire or civilian hits? The real culprit with those civilian hits is a lack of intelligence on the targets, which would not be different if a live pilot were operating a manned plane making precision strikes on the same targets. Contraction mapping posted:You're getting pretty over-the-top, dude. It's just publication bias; how often do you think the media is going to report stories about drones successfully identifying their targets and everything going peachy vs drones misidentifying their targets resulting in a million-billion civilian casualties? There are certainly non-trivial problems with drones and the US militaries' use of them, but they are useful tools nonetheless. Do yourself a favor and read this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan-drone-20110410,0,2818134,full.story The problem isn't a lack of intelligence, it's the hard-on intelligence officers have for blowing up anyone that looks foreign. Sending Predators to Libya can only end in civilian suffering with the kind of people the US military puts in command of those things. Some quotes: quote:The Afghans unfolded what looked like blankets and kneeled. "They're praying. They are praying," said the Predator's camera operator, seated near the pilot. quote:"We all had it in our head, 'Hey, why do you have 20 military age males at 5 a.m. collecting each other?'" quote:At 5:37 a.m., the pilot reported that one of the screeners in Florida had spotted one or more children in the group. quote:The Predator crew in Nevada was exultant, watching men they assumed were enemy fighters trying to help the injured. " 'Self-Aid Buddy Care' to the rescue," one of the drone's crew members said. quote:"What are those?" asked the camera operator. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Apr 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 12:54
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:http://s869.photobucket.com/albums/ab257/Mullen2010/Photos/?action=view¤t=PD_0025.jpg&newest=1 All I remember is the mythbusters ep showing a handgun shooting straight through both sides of a car as if the doors were made of butter. Not convinced a sheet of metal roof is going to make much difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 13:14
|
|
|
Jut posted:All I remember is the mythbusters ep showing a handgun shooting straight through both sides of a car as if the doors were made of butter. Not convinced a sheet of metal roof is going to make much difference. True, but that was at point blank range, and the metal body on cars is usually extremely thin. A sheet of metal roofing might not do much against well-aimed machinegun or rifle fire but it could be the difference between life and death when it comes to distant potshots, ricochets, or shrapnel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 13:25
|
|
|
On motivations, it's been clear from the beginning that the American involvement in Libya was driven mainly by Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Rice over the objection of the DoD and Robert Gates. Their view, Power's in particular, is that the US military can be effectively used to achieve humanitarian goals (this is a ridiculously good article, set aside a half hour to read it). I think most people would agree there's been a mixed record of success (and I'm being generous there) on using the military in that fashion, the most obvious and familiar example being the current war in Iraq. That also feeds a bit into France's motivations, as I'm sure Bernard-Levy has Sarkozy's ear and has definitely been cheerleading the war on French media, the BBC, and AJ since before it began. Sarkozy also has the typical French colonial view of Africa: they're a bunch of mud people that need to be dragged kicking into the current century. He doesn't just think that, France has troops deployed in Cote d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Somalia, Mali and of course what they're doing in Libya. They've been particularly sanguine about their involvement in Cote d'Ivoire and Burkina Faso, effectively installing the next government. And, yes, France Total is one of the largest oil interests in Libya. I've no idea what Britain is doing as a part of this. Humanitarianism by force has been a strategy opposed by the Tories' for the last decade as a wedge against Blair. The best thing for Britain's and Cameron's interests would have been a security council veto so that they could keep shipping arms to Gaddafi - there was actually a shipment of AA guns on the docks ready to leave for Libya when the US started firing cruise missiles. The UK's involvement can only be explained with psycho-analysis on Cameron and that's a waste of time. It's also not fair to say this is some grand NATO scheme, unless you're just using NATO as a replacement phrase for the US, which you'd be justified in doing. NATO is wholly owned and operated by the US and is just an extension of US interests. It's use in Libya is as a fig leaf for Obama to hide behind and pretend that the US military isn't involved. On that subject, the US military is now flying drone missions in Libya. This might also be being done by the CIA, which operates the drone missions in Pakistan and Yemen. Using the CIA to pilot the planes would offer Obama the advantage that they're not lawful combatants which makes it more difficult for Congress to rein him in using the War Powers Resolution (under the assumption that law even applies). There's theoretical Congressional oversight of the CIA, and you can read any number of books (Legacy of Ashes is a good one) to see how effective that is. I'm also not buying the argument that drone attacks lead to less civilian casualties, especially in light of the LA Times article posted above or the fact that for every "militant" killed by drones in AfPak, they've killed 10 civilians. I made a special point above to only source established American and British news sources, all of them (except perhaps the BBC) right wing sources just because I know of the bias here against other sources of information. Those in the last couple of pages who jumped all over this blog post because you didn't like the writing style of a non-native English speaker should give it another chance and you should look more skeptically at the news sources that you're so fond of excerpting in this thread. Remember, those same sources were very, very wrong about the lead up and initial conditions of nearly every war the US has been involved in since WWII.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 13:32
|
|
|
Samantha Power is a goddamned Saint, and her work on genocide, in addition to her arm twisting in this matter, should be grounds for a Nobel Peace Prize.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 13:35
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The problem isn't a lack of intelligence, it's the hard-on intelligence officers have for blowing up anyone that looks foreign. Sending Predators to Libya can only end in civilian suffering with the kind of people the US military puts in command of those things. Yes, yes, I've read that thread too, that's why I said 'There are certainly non-trivial problems with drones and the US militaries' use of them, but they are useful tools nonetheless'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:Yes, yes, I've read that thread too, that's why I said 'There are certainly non-trivial problems with drones and the US militaries' use of them, but they are useful tools nonetheless'. That really depends on how you define what a useful tool is, doesn't it? They're useful tools for slaughtering civilians, alienating populations, and putting bloodthirsty assholes behind the controls of expensive toys, but that doesn't matter much. The goal in Libya should be targeting forces attacking civilians while minimizing civilian casualties, and Predators are demonstrably not a useful tool for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:That really depends on how you define what a useful tool is, doesn't it? They're useful tools for slaughtering civilians, alienating populations, and putting bloodthirsty assholes behind the controls of expensive toys, but that doesn't matter much. The goal in Libya should be targeting forces attacking civilians while minimizing civilian casualties, and Predators are demonstrably not a useful tool for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 14:33
|
|
|
Jut posted:Are bullets not going to fly straight through the fence they strapped to the side of that truck? Marvin Heemeyer... RIP. The free people of the world miss your skills. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
Sten Freak posted:Hyperbolic and incorrect. A drone can linger for long periods at very slow speeds over a target area and methodically identify targets using an array of sophisticated sensors and cameras and launch munitions. Every weapon has the capability to hit the wrong target. Would you argue that a supersonic jet is less likely to hit the wrong target? I want my mistakes to be made my flawed human minds drat it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 15:18
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I want my mistakes to be made my flawed human minds drat it. In the case of drones, they are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
Been a bit busy today, so here's a regional round up from the Guardian live blog:quote:Syria:
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
Sten Freak posted:Hyperbolic and incorrect. A drone can linger for long periods at very slow speeds over a target area and methodically identify targets using an array of sophisticated sensors and cameras and launch munitions. Every weapon has the capability to hit the wrong target. Would you argue that a supersonic jet is less likely to hit the wrong target? I'd argue we shouldn't be hitting targets at all until the process to do so is revamped thoroughly, and that any improvements that a drone might provide are overshadowed by the procedures that are in place regardless of weapon. Using drones also distributes any agency behind an attack, so all you get is a bunch of people pointing fingers at other peoples' mistakes with no one ever taking responsibility for errors. Predators allow people like you to go about how this wonderful technology saves lives, the military is working so hard to protect civilians, and so on and so on, all while the drones are still killing far more civilians than intended targets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:Samantha Power is a goddamned Saint, and her work on genocide, in addition to her arm twisting in this matter, should be grounds for a Nobel Peace Prize. I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. And t3ch3, Mr Destructo is a great read, but the use of language, but it is visceral and visual at the cost of being informative. The well constructed scorn and passion driven insults are always fun to read, but they overwhelm the analysis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I'd argue we shouldn't be hitting targets at all until the process to do so is revamped thoroughly, and that any improvements that a drone might provide are overshadowed by the procedures that are in place regardless of weapon. Using drones also distributes any agency behind an attack, so all you get is a bunch of people pointing fingers at other peoples' mistakes with no one ever taking responsibility for errors. AreWeDrunkYet posted:Predators allow people like you to go about how this wonderful technology saves lives, the military is working so hard to protect civilians, and so on and so on, all while the drones are still killing far more civilians than intended targets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:Sheet metal is better than nothing, make do with what you got. It reminds me of what the Polish Home Army built to fight in the Battle of Warsaw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubu%C5%9B  quote:the car had no design prepared on paper and instead all construction was improvised in situ.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
Aaah, that famous Polish Engineering can't be beat. Their watches are also incredible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:On motivations, it's been clear from the beginning that the American involvement in Libya was driven mainly by Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Rice over the objection of the DoD and Robert Gates. Their view, Power's in particular, is that the US military can be effectively used to achieve humanitarian goals (this is a ridiculously good article, set aside a half hour to read it). I think most people would agree there's been a mixed record of success (and I'm being generous there) on using the military in that fashion, the most obvious and familiar example being the current war in Iraq. What could go wrong with sending masses of poorly-educated trigger-happy testosterone-fueled heavily-armed late teenagers who signed up to "kill some people" on humanitarian missions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
Baddog posted:What could go wrong with sending masses of poorly-educated trigger-happy testosterone-fueled heavily-armed late teenagers who signed up to "kill some people" on humanitarian missions? Is this a troll or is this how you literally see all of the military?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
It's not HOW I SEE IT, it's HOW IT IS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:Is this a troll or is this how you literally see all of the military? I'm from a military family, I grew up on military bases, I'm aware that there are plenty of good people. I'm also aware that the guys who are actually out on the front lines are kids, and not the brightest kids. And they didn't sign up to hand out water bottles. So deploying them on humanitarian missions is pure stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
Few bits of news:quote:Reuters news agency has reported that US Senator John McCain on Friday called on the United States to recognize Libyan rebels as the true voice of the Libyan people and transfer frozen Libyan assets to them. quote:AFP news agency has reported that France is in favour of giving frozen Libyan funds to rebels. quote:AFP news agency has reported that president Nicholas Sarkozy agrees 'in principle' to visit rebel-held Benghazi. Some interesting stuff from Misarata: quote:I've had another chat with Xan Rice in Misrata, who has further, significant news on a rebel success in the city (see 9.35am).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
There is a false equivalence between the use of Predator drones against nearly impossible to identify "militants" in the mountains of Pakistan, and their use against clearly identifiable tanks and artillery pieces parked in civilian neighborhoods in Libya. In the former case, it is not the Predators that's the problem, it's the decision to make attacks based on little or no intelligence, zero presence on the ground to confirm targets, and most importantly, the nature of the targets themselves: dudes with guns living in houses and driving around in civilian trucks. The Predators are very precisely hitting the targets they're being aimed at. In the latter case, the problem is that non-US aircraft flown by the other NATO members involved do not have precise enough munitions for NATO command to feel confident they can target Ghaddafi's tanks and artillery that are emplaced in city streets between civilian buildings, without risking collateral damage. In Libya, Predators can do what they were designed to do best, and the enemy is actually identifiable with confidence. It is therefore pretty goddamn stupid to argue that Predator drones are going to make things worse, entirely based on the track record of strikes against the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Predators will hit what they're aimed at, and there has been no indication at all so far that that will be anything other than Ghaddafi tanks, artillery, and anti-aircraft guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 19:48
|
|