|
euphronius posted:Uh unilaterally supporting two Apartheid states is actually really really bad. What I took from it is the US has these two specific horrible examples of abuse while Russia and China lay claim to the rest. Sure, the US support of South Africa and Israel was and is atrocious, but it kinda pales in comparison to the things Russia and China have vetoed.
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
that's loving brutal
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
Jut posted:It's worse than that, we don't have ANY carriers, and the Harrier has been retired. The land based stuff can make it with refueling. The US would take care of that part even if we "stayed out". Yeah though, no one is gonna invade Libya.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:This isn't the French revolution. The Egyptian provisional government consists of the same old Mubarak people, and even if they weren't that, they would have no popular mandate to invade their neighbour. Yeah, this. If there's military action to be taken, it's going to come down from the UN, not a regional power. The regional powers are a bit preoccupied at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:The tweet specifies the military forces in the east, which I assume isn't the whole Libyan military. It's also not his personal force or hired mercenaries.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
Syphilicious! posted:If there was U.S. military intervention then Libyan atrocities would probably stop but it's fairly likely that we would simply replace them with our own troops randomly shooting civilians and it's a safe bet that we would also ensure a pro-Western government developed. Well, bombing the poo poo out of Libya is sort of a national pastime. Our parents did it, our grandparents did it, our great-great grandparents did it...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 01:51
|
|
|
betaraywil posted:From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of... remind me, where again? probably Benghazi this time with gold rings on
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Other dictators should pay attention, the old master is putting on a clinic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
ShortStack posted:Did his speech actually end or did AJE just throw in the towel? they quit
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 18:02
|
|
|
BaconBits posted:BBC and Al Jazeera both cut to other things so I assume its over. It's not over, he's still going. e- he's screaming now e2- ok now its over
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
Spiky Ooze posted:I would assume mercs are really not that well trained in vehicles like jets and tanks, if at all, so every real soldier defection is really putting this closer to the end. If the defector army pushes through fast, it could be over in days. The mercenaries might be sub par idiots working for peanuts, but they might also be combat vets of numerous African civil wars familiar with all kinds of heavy weaponry.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me how a group of people can be victims of genocide while capturing vast swaths of territory at the same time? Also the rebels are armed, fighting back, and not in uniform. That's not kosher per the UN, either. Let's try and focus on the realistic solutions the international community can engage in instead of cheerleading another rushed, ill-advised war, ok everyone?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Sadly, they will likely receive none. A no-fly zone isn't out of the realm of possibility, but it's going to take some time to get the political will behind it and then set it up. Peacekeepers are a ways off at best, and a coalition of the willing with a UN mandate behind it isn't going to happen at all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You would not need a carrier group I'd think. Libya is easily reachable from European and Asian air bases I wager. Yeah I was gonna post this. The US has bases all over there, from Italy outward. Any allies going in would have our tanker assets and their own. If France is a dear this time around a carrier won't be used if a no-fly zone is set up. They might send one for extra fuckage but it doesn't matter either way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
Jut posted:Speaking of the UN, and anyone else surprised that the top three contributers of troops to peacekeeping operations are India, Bangladesh and Pakistan? When the US was in Somalia in the 1990s I saw a news piece about the involvement of Pakistan in the UN, it's pretty astounding.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
Jut posted:It's pretty awesome given that other members of the UN don't like paying their contributions (and I'm not just talking about the US). The US involvement with the UN is hilariously sad, but the troop involvement makes sense because it's a given that we're probably leading a UN force, yet want to retain sole command over our troops. That part is understandable, I guess, and we aren't the only nation that operates like that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
dpbjinc posted:I don't know about France or everywhere, but I'm pretty sure in America it's illegal to shoot someone unless they're about to kill you, or in this example, had successfully stolen the weapons, armed them, and were pointing them at you. The United States has a long and storied history of using violent force to quell uprisings at the local, state and federal level. If you attack a US military installation you will be shot dead, if you do it by force of numbers, they will escalate the response.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
Rkelly posted:Maybe this is true at larger bases, but the bases for the national guard in Kentucky small towns with all kinds of poo poo like mark19's. My old roommate was Armory Chief. When they were deployed to Abu Gharib prison. The only person there was him and a couple people who had joined after the deployment. There may be places that are lightly guarded, but that's not to say the guards won't shoot at you on sight.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2011 16:37
|
|
|
Wiz posted:What exactly would harrassing the inhabitants achieve? The city is a hostile stronghold in the middle of the territory he controls, Gaddafi "letting" it continue to be by the rebels makes about as much sense as tranquilizers in the water. It takes time to move forces, and if he doesn't have enough in the area to clear the city the best option he has is to harass the line until the cavalry shows up. It's common military strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 18:02
|
|
|
Wiz posted:We were talking about his objective towards the city though, which is obviously to take and hold it, even if that wasn't necessarily the objective of this particular attack. His objective is definitely to take and hold, but I agree with the sentiment that he may be launching small attacks just to keep the rebels occupied. It's hard for them to organize as one unit that way, and if he can do that in the rebel held areas he can consolidate his power base to begin a counter attack. Also, running an armored column into and out of a city isn't uncommon. It's likely it was a strong probing attack to test rebel defenses. With it being repulsed, the loyalist commanders have a clearer picture of the fight on the ground and can adjust accordingly. The US did this to Baghdad during the 2003 invasion. The 3rd Infantry Division made what was called the "Thunder Run" as a probing attack that quickly turned into a rout and the next day American forces began pouring into the city. e- or Loyalist forces are a bunch of total gently caress ups, it's more probably that Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Mar 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Reports like these are usually so sketchy on details and skewed on facts that it's hard to really tell what has happened. For example, when ordinary people say 'tank', they may mean just about anything from an armoured car to a self-propelled gun: they all are big scary vehicles with guns. But for a serious tactical analysis it is important to know if the vehicles in question are, for instance, T-72's (tanks) or BMP-1's (infantry fighting vehicles). Yeah, this is a good point as well. Even different actual tanks can vary in effectiveness, like if the Libyan military still has T-62s. The difference in a T-62 and T-72 is important to note, but from APC's to MBT's the news calls all armored vehicles "tanks". Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Mar 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:If the tanks shown at the beginning of the footage of the BBC video report here are from outside Zawiya, as the reporter says, then they clearly must be T-72's. There's 11 shown on the video. One Libyan army tank company (modelled after Soviets) has 10 tanks, so there was at least a full tank company in there. If the reports of more than 20 tanks attacking Zawiya are true, then it would mean a whole tank battalion. Yeah, those are T-72s I think. 20 T-72s is going to be a tough nut to crack. If they have capable infantry support that's going to be fairly dangerous to the rebels. Of course, urban combat is a great equalizer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
Indi86 posted:If they go in, they'll hit their targets. The bigger problem will be the still-hostile air space. It's a problem that people should be concerned about, but Libya's anti-air capabilities are laughable compared to more recent invasions the West has carried out. Also, his air force is loving old. I mean there's old, and then there's Libya.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
Rkelly posted:CNN said France's jets were 1 hour to 1 and 1/2 hours away at anytime. France isn't that far away from Libya, especially when there's open water and no speed limit. Jut posted:establishing peacekeeping operations is an option Didn't the resolution specifically prohibit foreign occupation? Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 22:05
|
|
|
Jack Napier posted:I literally just saw that on Al Jazeera after I read it. Will everyone just let him be clear? drat. Man's trying to talk.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
Thunderstorm posted:I'm not a military expert, but in my understanding the NFZ easily sanctions operations in Libyan air space, and coalition forces shouldn't have too much trouble getting those air defenses out of the way necessary to get there for some intel. I'm pretty sure there's been various intelligence gathering overflights of Libya already, even before the UN resolution. That kind of stuff goes on unsaid.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
Smug Guy posted:It's possible that stealth aircraft may not be susceptible to these defenses, but the command and control and support aircraft that support them would be, at a minimum. Most of his AA capabilities are cannons of various sorts, and if you see it you can shoot it. They are also occasionally lucky when a bunch of them open up on the same general area without seeing the target. F-22's are going to be loitering well above and away from the hottest of the action, and if they are used at all it will be in a purely air to air, defensive posture, most likely guarding the AWACS and other support craft slightly off shore. Xandu posted:110 seems like a shitload, but I don't know much about cruise missiles. The warhead isn't much bigger than a conventional bomb, so 110 bombs over 20 targets isn't that much.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
Cjones posted:This guy wants to know how Libya's air defense system relates to Iran's. Wtf? It's such a dumb question anyway because there's really only a handful of countries that have the capability to stop a substantial air assault from the Western allies. Only one is in the mideast, and it isn't Iran. You'd figure with all the military analysts the news stations employ they would mention that once or twice, but nope.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:This is nothing like any war in memory really. This is like the feel-good war of the year. It's still early though, we can fit one good one in over the summer I bet. ChaosSamusX posted:Doesn't Iran have a number pf S-300 Missiles from Russia? I forget. We have more planes than they do missiles. There's varying levels of cost on a nation by nation basis, but almost all nations on Earth would be overrun in under a month by the forces laid out against Libya at the moment. e- Besides, a lot of the Iranian missiles and the C&C support network would be flattened by missiles before the planes went in. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
Tuff Ghost posted:Whoa whoa, Tom Clancy. Nuff with the techno jargon, we're all just civilians here Honestly I think he names all military hardware. The plane is called a "Growler".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
Ehud posted:I'm genuinely confused and curious: Isn't there supposed to be congressional approval for the US to take military action? Am I just being incredibly naive? No, limited powers of war have been acceptable for decades now. Reagan never got approval to whack Libya the first time around. If Obama sends a division in without going to Congress, then there's a problem. A few missiles and a radar plane isn't anything remarkable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Koesj posted:F/A-18 A to F were already taken so it's the G model for SEAD missions + its the successor to the EA-6B Prowler = Growler Yeah, I know. Like 80% of GBS just had a stroke, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:Not US military powers. The authorization for this comes from the war powers resolution, which allows the President to engage forces for 60 days without authorization from Congress or a declaration of war. After that, Congress can authorize a 30 day extension, a full authorization of force (as was done for Iraq) or declare war. There are questions about the constitutionality of the war powers resolution, but it's unlikely to face a challenge. Just to expand on this in a different direction, but there's not a single thing about the US that the UN Security Council overrides. The US as a whole does what it wants. Aromatic Stretch posted:Not to be a pessimist, but I've heard a few people (on this website and in the news) say that this will be over relatively quickly. What makes people so sure? Is there anything drastically different here than there was when the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were starting that suggests this will go more smoothly? Libya is engaged in a civil war against elements of its own military, they don't control all of their territory, and their ground and air forces are both a full generation behind Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The US bitch slapped Gadhafi a full 25 years ago, and he basically has the exact same forces now. Libya is not a threat, and there is no occupation planned. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:This isn't going to be relatively quick. This entire action is going to prolong the civil war for months. A lot of people are going to die as a result of that. As opposed to the quicker, more violent crushing of the rebels by Gadhafi and the purge that follows?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
Mr.Hotkeys posted:Where are you guys watching this, mostly? AJE? I've been watching MSNBC and it's been decent, but a lot of dumb EXPERT OPINIONS I could care less about. Watch AJE. It's better than the BBC.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:The "rebels" are not like the people in the streets of Cairo. They're an alliance of tribes, as Libyan politics tend to be. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't also violently crush and purge Qaddafi's allies following a victory. Yeah, only this time we were asked by the people of the country, the region, and the UN...and are doing it reluctantly. If you think this is like Iraq and Afghanistan I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
Nombres posted:Heavily armed, decentralized militias and turncoat military units are seldom a cheery thing once the uniting factor has been kicked out I don't know if you're talking about Libya or the US.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Nombres posted:If US Army units were fighting each other while rebel militias were marching on Washington, and fighting off armored convoys outside of New York City while EU airforces were bombing Baltimore sure, I'd be talking about the US when DC was sacked. This isn't unlike revolutions or civil wars throughout time, so I don't know why people think Libya is going to turn out like Somalia. Is it just because it's an Arabic country? There's a chance that happens, but there's a chance something beautiful happens. That's all I've seen these terrible rebels asking for. A chance.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:It's stupid to assume that Qaddafi is simply going to slaughter everyone. In the towns he has re-claimed, we have not seen these "purges" that everyone claims are going to happen. It's just justification for intervening where we don't belong. We picked a side in a civil war and now we're trying to justify it because they're the good guys and Qaddafi is the bad guy. As if. Uh, there's like a ton of articles out there detailing how loyalist forces were executing people in the streets after they recaptured towns, go read one so you can troll more effectively.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:That said, I suspect intervention has happened too late: you can't really dislodge him from Benghazi through airstrikes. If that city is overrun I don't really see the path to rolling him back and preserving the rebel army. I think it might be too late as well, but the Germans learned a hard lesson in Stalingrad about supply lines and holding an urban area. We won't be able to dislodge them directly, but we can cut off their supplies and let the rebels handle them. Benghazi won't fall to loyalist forces now, and that's....something. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:34
|
|