|
Rebels to NATO: gently caress you assholesquote:General Abdel Fattah Younes was scathing in his condemnation of Nato. "They have disappointed us. Nato has become our problem. Either Nato does its work properly or we will ask the Security Council to suspend its work." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...es-2264334.html If given a free hand the general would probably ask for B-52's to carpet bomb any resisting town into dust with everyone in it.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 08:57 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 19:55 |
|
|
Z. Beeblebrox IV posted:Yeah, after the whole Iraq War thing, Gates will have to forgive us for being EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL any time the US govt loudly declares that they have "evidence" for anything happening in the Middle East that isn't already public knowledge. Yes, we know Iran has no history of ever sending in material or personnel support to countries with oppressed Shiite majorities for most of the last 30 years. 
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 09:31 |
|
|
CeeJee posted:Rebels to NATO: gently caress you assholes Thanks for the heads-up The Independent posted:That was on Tuesday night at a packed press conference in Benghazi. Warthog fucked around with this message at Apr 7, 2011 around 11:01 |
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 10:53 |
|
|
CeeJee posted:Rebels to NATO: gently caress you assholes HAHAHAHAHA wasn't it only a few weeks ago that the rebels were about to be steamrolled by CQ? NATO is the only thing keeping the rebels alive at the moment. Ask them to leave...priceless. More like Rebels to NATO: "waaaaaaahhh!" Edit: NATO bomb rebel armour "accidentally" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997181 I'm interested to find out if this was a genuine accident, or NATO just wanting to stop armour from advancing on civilian areas. I think the rebels are about to realise that NATO are not there to help them, or CQ, so hopefully they, like CQ will begin to realise the only way out of this mess is through diplomacy. Jut fucked around with this message at Apr 7, 2011 around 14:25 |
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 14:20 |
|
|
General Carter Ham has just declared that there is now a stalemate on the ground in Libya. Oh and militants in Gaza just fired an anti-tank missile at a school bus in Israel, so expect all hell to break loose there.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 14:32 |
|
|
The latest:quote:The latest from the front lines in Libya: experienced military commanders who defected from the Gaddafi regime are trying to stop rebels from advancing towards Brega. Gaddafi's main force in the region has advanced beyond Brega, according to reporters, and the military commanders with the rebels want to make sure that Ajdabiya is well defended. The rebels are still complaining that, since the U.S. has withdrawn its aerial bombardment campaign, NATO has failed to protect civilians from Gaddafi's heavy weapons, artillery, and missiles. http://www.enduringamerica.com/home...n-too-slow.html quote:Pro-democracy fighters have regained ground in a new advance on the oil port of Brega in eastern Libya. Rebels said the loss of ground early this week to forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi is a normal occurrence in fluid desert wars, and will not prevent them from ousting the Libyan leader. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/a...3751775276.html quote:In Yemen, hundreds of thousands are gathering across the country, with pro-and anti-government demonstrations taking place in the capital Sanaa. President Ali Abdullah Saleh has agreed to resign by January 2012, but the opposition and protesters are calling for his immediate departure. For many years Mr Saleh was seen by Washington as the only man who could keep at al-Qaeda at bay in Yemen, says a BBC correspondent in the country. But that sentiment has changed, adds our correspondent, with many now seeing him as the main source of instability in the country. quote:Amid all the regional unrest, Israel has remained relatively peaceful in the past two months. How does it feel about the turmoil swirling around it? "We in Israel welcome the Arab spring," says President Shimon Peres in a comment piece for The Guardian. "Unlike Hamas and Hezbollah, the young want peace and progress in our region." quote:Our colleagues at BBC Monitoring report that Libyan intelligence chief Abuzayd Umar Durdah has called into Libyan state TV denying claims he had defected. He called into a live discussion programme on the state-owned Al-Jamahiriyah TV channel late on Thursday night, saying: "I don't have one reason to depart the homeland or to betray the people or the leader and the victorious revolution he is leading." quote:What can we discern from the fighting in Libya? The Economist argues the only emerging pattern is one of wildly see-sawing fortunes, as coastal towns change hands with almost metronomic regularity. In a leader this week, the paper argues the coalition's priorities are to halt the advance of loyalist troops, bring some relief to the civilians in Misrata and encourage members of the regime to start looking for a way out. quote:Our diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus takes stock of the current situation in Libya. Two weeks ago Libyan government forces were at the gates of Bengazi, and Col Gaddafi was threatening terrible vengeance against civilians there, he says. "Fearing a humanitarian catastrophe the UN Security Council passed a resolution allowing the use of force and the air operations began. The change in military fortunes on the ground was swift. Now it was the lightly-armed opposition forces that were advancing westwards; Libyan government tanks, artillery and supply lines harried from the air. But now the pendulum has swung back to the government side. Its forces have re-captured many of the small towns that they lost early on. The reasons for this shift are unclear. Is it a change of tactics by the government forces? Has Nato air power taken its foot off the gas? Or is it simply that the hollowness of the rag-tag rebel forces has been revealed for all to see ?" quote:The military front is not Libya's only battlefield, adds our correspondent. "There are economic sanctions and an arms embargo. But there is a diplomatic struggle underway too; the aim being two-fold - either to try to persuade Col Gaddafi to step down and go into exile, or to encourage the crumbling of his regime from within. The defection of his foreign Minister represents a small but significant victory in this struggle. The hope, especially in London, Paris and Washington is that more will follow in his foot-steps. There's a psychological battle too. Are regime elements really reaching out for some kind of deal? Or is this too a gambit on the part of coalition nations to sow more uncertainty in Tripoli? Either way this conflict is far from over, but if there is to be a decisive end, it could come suddenly." quote:Spain says it will create and fund two humanitarian "land corridors" to send aid to the rebel-stronghold of Benghazi in eastern Libya. Secretary of State for Co-operation Soraya Rodriguez says Madrid has struck a deal with the Arab Medical Association, based in Cairo, which will convey humanitarian supplies. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418 quote:Libya leader Muammar Gaddafi's armed forces are not close to breaking point despite hundreds of allied air strikes, American military chiefs have said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12924807 quote:Rebels in eastern Libya say their forces have been mistakenly hit in a Nato air raid. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997181 quote:The US has rebuffed a personal appeal from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to US President Barack Obama, repeating that he must resign and go into exile. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-afr..._medium=twitter quote:People living in Syria's eastern Hasaka region are to be granted Syrian nationality by a decree from President Bashar al-Assad, according to state TV. quote:Besieged Ivory Coast leader Laurent Gbagbo has fewer than 1,000 troops left in the main city of Abidjan, French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet says. quote:He estimates 200 of these fighters are at the presidential residence, where the strongman refuses to stand down. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997461 quote:Fresh fighting has flared in Yemen between tribesmen loyal to President Ali Abdullah Saleh and soldiers backing anti-government protesters. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12976208 quote:Britain is to urge Arab countries to train the disorganised Libyan rebels, and so strengthen their position on the battlefield before negotiations on a ceasefire, senior British defence sources have indicated. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...ing-funded-arab
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 14:37 |
|
|
quote:The sources said they were also looking at hiring private security companies, some of which draw on former SAS members, to aid the rebels. These private soldiers could be paid by Arab countries to train the unstructured rebel army. Just what the region needs! More mercenaries!
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 14:52 |
|
|
Gorau posted:Just what the region needs! More mercenaries! To be fair, it looks like the reports of thousands of African mercenaries pouring into the country were bunk.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 14:54 |
|
|
It's incredible to look at the rebels whining about NATO now as compared to about two weeks ago. Maybe we should just pull out and leave them. Godspeed!
|
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 15:41 |
|
|
killing_fields posted:It's incredible to look at the rebels whining about NATO now as compared to about two weeks ago. Maybe we should just pull out and leave them. Godspeed! I knooow right? I mean, blow up a few of them, don't do anything to really help, refuse to give them weapons, and bomb a few more of them, and all of a sudden they turn to big babies! I'm starting to think these savages don't even deserve the
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 15:49 |
|
shotgunbadger posted:I knooow right? I mean, blow up a few of them, don't do anything to really help, refuse to give them weapons, and bomb a few more of them, and all of a sudden they turn to big babies! I'm starting to think these savages don't even deserve the Yeah dude, you said it!!
|
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 15:53 |
|
|
NATO is in a no-win situation. They can continue to destroy some government assets, but will invariably have to avoid bombing targets mixed with civilian populations. And every single strike brings the possibility of civilian deaths and misidentified targets, no matter what it is or where it is. It's remarkable given both sides on the ground are using the basically same mix of arms and there is little in the way of communication between the rebels and air commanders that they are able to positively identify alliances and targets at all. Cease the strikes, and they will be blamed for not helping. Continue, and they'll be blamed anytime a rebel or civilian is killed when friendly fire and collateral damage is a fact of war. One must remember too that NATO's mission is to protect civilians, not assist the rebels. Arming people whom we know little about, politically and otherwise, is extremely irresponsible. I'm not sure where this conflict goes from here but it's not NATO's war and it's definitely not the US's. Fellow Arab and Muslim nations should be involved both in a material sense and visibly (and beyond the participation levels of Turkey or Qatar). Many nations have an opportunity to participate in world-changing regional politics, fail to do so, and of course criticize the West safely from the sidelines. It's pathetic really.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 16:14 |
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:I knooow right? I mean, blow up a few of them, don't do anything to really help, refuse to give them weapons, and bomb a few more of them, and all of a sudden they turn to big babies! I'm starting to think these savages don't even deserve the What...uh...what do you think would have happened if the West hadn't intervened?
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 16:40 |
|
|
Space Monster posted:What...uh...what do you think would have happened if the West hadn't intervened? We didn't really intervene very well, we blew up some stuff (and a whole lot of civilians/rebels woops) and then refused to arm and aid the rebels because scary brown people, so it'd most likely go about the same.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 16:46 |
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:We didn't really intervene very well, we blew up some stuff (and a whole lot of civilians/rebels woops) and then refused to arm and aid the rebels because scary brown people, so it'd most likely go about the same. So Benghazi wouldn't have been sacked, and thousands of rebels and tens of thousands of civilians wouldn't have been butchered? Ok, just checking.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 16:49 |
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:refused to arm and aid the rebels because scary brown people Arming the rebels is a very dangerous thing to do. Both politically and physically. If we arm them, we are basically taking a side in an internal struggle. That sets a dangerous precedent. How do we decide which rebellions are worthy of our help? Secondly, the US has a lot of experience in arming rebel groups that come back around to do a lot of harm.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 16:55 |
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:We didn't really intervene very well, we blew up some stuff (and a whole lot of civilians/rebels woops) and then refused to arm and aid the rebels because scary brown people, so it'd most likely go about the same. Yeah, because Western nations arming various groups in the Middle East has gone over real well in the past 50 years
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 17:00 |
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:Yeah, because Western nations arming various groups in the Middle East has gone over real well in the past 50 years Hey if you're going imperialist might as well go all the way. We already 'took a side' when we started dropping bombs, we just refuse to arm the rebels and actually help them because someone in a uniform said "Terrorists!" and we all poo poo ourselves.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 17:05 |
|
|
DevNull posted:Arming the rebels is a very dangerous thing to do. Both politically and physically. If we arm them, we are basically taking a side in an internal struggle. I don't think anyone really thinks that we didn't in the first place.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 17:22 |
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:Hey if you're going imperialist might as well go all the way. We already 'took a side' when we started dropping bombs, we just refuse to arm the rebels and actually help them because someone in a uniform said "Terrorists!" and we all poo poo ourselves. Indeed. How are we supposed to take their oil, unicorns, and collective virginity if we don't arm them first?
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 17:25 |
|
|
IRQ posted:I don't think anyone really thinks that we didn't in the first place. Yea I don't get how 'but then we'd take a side!' is an argument here, do people really think we're doing neutral bombings or something?
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 17:30 |
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:Hey if you're going imperialist might as well go all the way. We already 'took a side' when we started dropping bombs, we just refuse to arm the rebels and actually help them because someone in a uniform said "Terrorists!" and we all poo poo ourselves. Yeah, we took the side of 'not letting Gadaffi slaughter the NTC and the civilians they govern', not the side of 'ousting Gadaffi at any and all costs'. Don't get me wrong, I'm for the intervention, but you have to understand that a large number of the fightin' rebels are basically just civilians who picked up whatever weapons they could scrounge at the last minute; we don't have any idea where their loyalties lie (aside from wanting to kill Gadaffi), and it has already been shown that there are several Gadaffi spies in their ranks. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to have reservations about giving these people weapons, given that there aren't any guarantees they wouldn't be used against the NTC or other internal conflicts after Gadaffi gets the wall. Contraction mapping fucked around with this message at Apr 7, 2011 around 17:36 |
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 17:33 |
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:Yeah, we took the side of 'not letting Gadaffi slaughter the NTC and the civilians they govern', not the side of 'ousting Gadaffi at any and all costs'. No since the start we've had the position of 'nooo we don't want him out *wink wink*'. You can't take the position of 'we want you to stop doing things, but we don't want you out', if we're taking the stance of 'he's a crazy monster who murders people' you have to also take 'take him out' with that.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 17:44 |
|
|
Unicorns are rumoured to be in India not Cyrenaica. edit Got my rumors of antiquity wrong. euphronius fucked around with this message at Apr 7, 2011 around 17:50 |
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 17:47 |
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:Yeah, we took the side of 'not letting Gadaffi slaughter the NTC and the civilians they govern', not the side of 'ousting Gadaffi at any and all costs'. We were basically acting as close air support for them and France, who has been at the forefront of this shindig had already recognized the NTC as the official governing body of Libya before we started bombing poo poo. Making Khadaffi  has been the goal of this thing from the start, just nobody wants to actually state it because it's a rather big international law no-no.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 17:48 |
|
|
I dont think they could get that goal through the UNSC.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 17:50 |
|
|
IRQ posted:We were basically acting as close air support for them and France, who has been at the forefront of this shindig had already recognized the NTC as the official governing body of Libya before we started bombing poo poo. shotgunbadger posted:Everything IRQ said if IRQ were posting in LF. Exactly. Don't get me wrong, I understand that everyone wants Gadaffi gone and that a big reason for the airstrikes was furthering that end. I just think it isn't unreasonable to have limits as to how far we're willing to go to get rid of Gadaffi, or to have reservations about giving the rebels weapons for the reasons I've stated above. If the all the rebels were part of a cohesive, well-trained military that were firmly under the control and guidance of the civilian NTC, I would have considerably fewer reservations about arming them, but that isn't the situation on the ground right now.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 18:13 |
|
|
Colonel Qaddafhi owns so hard, he's got these sniveling amateurs scattering and panicked like roaches when the lights turn on.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 18:21 |
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Colonel Qaddafhi owns so hard, he's got these sniveling amateurs scattering and panicked like roaches when the lights turn on. He's been dressing pretty boss lately, this thread is now about Qaddafhi's fashion.  I don't see none of ya'll Prezidents lookin' like dat. Also partition of Libya is very likely at this point, unless he's negotiation an exit, but he's pretty much winning by stale-mate, and he's managed to actually get planes in the air. Nonsense fucked around with this message at Apr 7, 2011 around 18:32 |
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 18:27 |
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:Hey if you're going imperialist might as well go all the way. We already 'took a side' when we started dropping bombs, we just refuse to arm the rebels and actually help them because someone in a uniform said "Terrorists!" and we all poo poo ourselves. When you find yourself in a hole, the first step to getting yourself out of the hole is to stop digging. Just because the massive error of dropping bombs in the first place was made is not a reason to make more massive errors.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 18:43 |
|
|
thefncrow posted:When you find yourself in a hole, the first step to getting yourself out of the hole is to stop digging. What I was saying is that Obama's already done the mistake, and he's too much of a hawk to go 'woops, gently caress it', so we're either gonna keep bombing and just blowing up civilians randomly or wind up playing the 'arm the rebels' game.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 18:48 |
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:What I was saying is that Obama's already done the mistake, and he's too much of a hawk to go 'woops, gently caress it', so we're either gonna keep bombing and just blowing up civilians randomly or wind up playing the 'arm the rebels' game. If that's the case, then I generally agree. I just disagree with the tone, which seems much like you're ready to throw up your arms and give up on pursuing the proper strategy of extricating ourselves from the disastrous situation we entered into foolishly.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 19:05 |
|
|
thefncrow posted:If that's the case, then I generally agree. I just disagree with the tone, which seems much like you're ready to throw up your arms and give up on pursuing the proper strategy of extricating ourselves from the disastrous situation we entered into foolishly. Oh, no, I'd love to get out of all our assorted 'involvements' in the region, I was just saying that I know Obama won't and has no interest in stopping until he can make his own Mission Accomplished speech.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 19:15 |
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:Oh, no, I'd love to get out of all our assorted 'involvements' in the region, I was just saying that I know Obama won't and has no interest in stopping until he can make his own Mission Accomplished speech. I'm all for making GBS threads on Obama but he didn't even want to get into this and afaik US planes aren't flying combat missions anymore and haven't for like a week.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 19:27 |
|
|
IRQ posted:I'm all for making GBS threads on Obama but he didn't even want to get into this and afaik US planes aren't flying combat missions anymore and haven't for like a week. Agreed, this is more of Sarkozy and Cameron's stillborn lovechild than Obama's abortion.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 20:05 |
|
|
I just read in a New York Times article about the federal budget stalemate and its effects on soldiers who will have their pay for the time period during which the federal gubment is shut down ("Budget Fight Could Delay Pay, Gates Tells Troops in Iraq") that the president of Iraq's name is "Jalal Talabani". So Barack Hussein Obama is a muslim that hate's America, how come nobody's even mentioned this yet?
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 20:08 |
|
|
Before you all freak out about us abandoning the rebels or getting dragged into another quagmire, remember that it's been less than 2 months since the rebellion started in the first place. Like Obama said in his speech, it took over a year for any NATO action in Bosnia, maybe it's just going to take a while for the Depts of State and Defense to sort everything out.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 20:27 |
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:We didn't really intervene very well, we blew up some stuff (and a whole lot of civilians/rebels woops) and then refused to arm and aid the rebels because scary brown people, so it'd most likely go about the same. Go and read the loving resolution that authorised action. NATO have stuck to the boundaries set by that resolution. If it turns out they bombed the advancing rebel armour on purpose then good for them for sticking to the UNSCR to the letter.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 20:41 |
|
|
Jut posted:Go and read the loving resolution that authorised action. NATO have stuck to the boundaries set by that resolution. If it turns out they bombed the advancing rebel armour on purpose then good for them for sticking to the UNSCR to the letter. I saw a few reports on twitter that it was not actually NATO that bombed the rebels. They were actually bombed by Qaddafi's forces.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 20:44 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 19:55 |
|
|
DevNull posted:I saw a few reports on twitter that it was not actually NATO that bombed the rebels. They were actually bombed by Qaddafi's forces. The general feeling on that from what I've read is that it's highly unlikely. This is probably the rebels trying to save face both on the international stage but more importantly domestically as well.
|
| # ? Apr 7, 2011 21:38 |
|
