|
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. This is a bad argument for a number of reasons, most specifically that the time for purges would be after he retakes the country, not diverting people while he's still fighting pitched battles against the rebels, that it's incredibly dangerous for reporters in the country right now, and lots of other reasons. There's not really any good dispute over who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in this situation either. 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.
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:26 |
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:It's not that it's like Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that we are prolonging the civil war instead of letting it run its course. A civil war isn't something where the 'natural' result has any moral value, we are not observing penguins in the artic trying to shoot a documentary with no human interference.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Actually, no. But I think saying the rebels are great guys is idiotic. What do you think the difference is?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:"Running its course" doesn't have a moral value, but in this case is the best option. It will quickly be resolved if we let it go. By intervening, we simply prolong the conflict and that will lead to massive suffering. Nonsense: you rely on ignoring the multitude of posts torpedoing your claim that a Quadaffi victory will be bloodless and cause no suffering, while offering no evidence for your claim.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:One is a strong ally and the other is an easy target. No. One has the potential to be solved through UN intervention that doesn't involve an invasion, the other does not. This wasn't even a hard question, if you thought about it for a second you'd have figured it out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Calling this a "genocide" is not only a misnomer, but incredibly offensive to what a real genocide is. There's a difference between violently putting down a rebellion and ethnic cleansing. Obviously, violently putting down a rebellion is bad. But that's what autocrats do when their regime is threatened. That's hardly unexpected. This happens all the time, and we feel no need to intervene at other times. Now suddenly Libya is a "cause" and gosh, we gotta get over there and start saving people. Not only did you try to dismiss every point people made with a stupid semantic argument, it wasn't even one anyone made, followed by your bland assertion backed up by nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Name me a Western power that hasn't killed protestors with small arms. Now show me one that has done it with 23mm cannons. That's not a good argument and you're taking bait to distract from the real flaws of his argument.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
I still don't think this is an intervention particularly likely to succeed: I think it's too late and air power is useless if the rebel army has been too beaten up to retake the rebel cities. However, we'll probably see relatively quickly: either they'll continue to be routed, or they won't. If they manage to recover, I'm not sure I see a viable way for them to take Tripoli and oust Quadaffi, so it'll probably end up a divided country, which isn't a great solution. If that happens, the polite fiction that this is about protecting civilians makes it hard to justify using air power to support rebel advances (and definitely makes it impossible to use air power to help them take cities - dropping bombs willy-nilly in urban areas is not going to help anything). I think people severely overestimate the likelihood of success here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Xandu posted:It's illegal to assassinate foreign leaders. Maybe now that it's a war that has changed, I'd have to double check the E.O. though. The US was quite open about trying to target Saddam during Iraq II so I don't think that'll have any real force.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
Smug Guy posted:You are operating under the assumption that coalition forces will not be targeting artillery and supply columns under the pretense they are threats to the no fly zone by extension. Oh I expect they will, that's why I think intervention before Quadaffi regained so much territory would have been more likely to succeed. Anything in the open heading towards the rebels can be bombed, but that doesn't reconstitute the rebel army or take a city back.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Correspondingly to the fact that there is no reason to believe Qaddafi is going to purge and exterminate everyone he hates, there is also no reason to believe that the rebels would not do the exact same thing he would do. Would we intervene against them to stop them from massacring the tribes that side with Qaddafi? I mean, he's quite openly, repeatedly, on tv, said he will. The rebels wouldn't have a similar incentive to establish a rule by fear: their legitimacy is based on his attacks on civilians, and they appear to have popular support (that's why they're so dangerous to the regime). Your view of tribal politics also appears overly simplistic: it's not a simple issue and this isn't one tribe vs. another: this is a popular movement, that is influenced by tribal loyalties and customs and the like. Protracted civil wars are bloody things, but given the geography of Libya I don't see it as likely that this would follow the standard civil war script: it's a giant desert with dotted towns and cities that have actual importance. There's really no other option besides pitched battles.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
farraday posted:My major problem with your assessment is not in the quality of the militias, but n how well the pro-Ghaddaffi forces will hold up under air bombardment. They've already apparently pulled out of Benghazi leaving reportedly(possibly rumored) 2-6 usable tanks behind. If the rebel militias are able to advance at all you could see Ghaddafis gains of the last week turned around rapidly. I had not heard that: I'm significantly less pessimistic if the rebels are in complete control of Benghazi. farraday posted:Here's the way I see it. If it's solely the resolution that drives the coalition involvement, there is a serious concern for stalemate. However, I don't think the resolution is an accurate depiction of the goals of the coalition. This is regime change, and I expect there to be more air support of the militas than a simple reading of the resolution would suggest. I think you're right about the coalition's goals: however I think the resolution accurately depicts the means they're willing to use to get it and the limits of those means will inhibit their ability to succeed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:As for purges, he said he was going to kill the people trying to take down his regime. That's pretty standard fare, not indicative that he's going to institute the sort of collective punishment claimed in this thread. You seem to be suggesting that because his actions in purging rebels and supporters is explicable, it's not a problem. This makes no sense, of course: however rational it is for a dictator to execute people who are not loyal, it's still a massacre. As for your argument this is not a popular uprising: that's not a viable argument. Essentially, you're arguing a popular uprising cannot fail by definition: if the dictator is able to suppress it through attacking civilians, it's not a popular uprising. That's not a useful definition or one anyone else uses. The argument that the protests were not "big enough" when the Libyan forces are willing to attack civilians (unlike in Egypt) means your comparison to Egypt is useless.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I'm not sure what you mean here. A back-and-forth civil war will be absolutely devastating regardless. That a back and forth civil war, in the traditional sense, isn't really possible given the geography and the forces involved.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:I just realized something, where is Secretary Gates at? Who's been speaking for the DoD? Anyone? Their spokesman, I would hope, rather than the guy who should be actually making decisions and the like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
BIG HORNY COW posted:Yeah - but what about the Rafales and whatever other strike aircraft will be coming in to engage non-static targets like armor / self propelled AA? I think - though I'm not sure about this - the basic way this works is you attack the air defense from really far away so you don't get shot down while doing it,t then once that's been knocked out you can engage in the closer-in bombing of tanks and artillery and the like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Nombres posted:I'm curious, where are the NTC getting their arms, vehicles and ammunition? I assume there were probably government armories they raided, but how well were they equipped? How rich is Benghazi, i.e., will the NTC have the financial ability to purchase these new arms and ammunition when the current ones become run down, lost in combat or just generally broken? Local arsenals, and parts of the military that revolted and joined the rebels. They are largely much more poorly armed than Quadaffi's forces.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:I actually find it all a bit unfair. They aren't needed at this stage, the NATO-countries are far more capable. The Arab nations (and my native Sweden) can join up later on, when the worst of the fighting is over. We would just be in the way at this point. The arab and muslim countries are needed politically, and the politics of this are important.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
Jaysus posted:Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Pretty hard to believe you could get that many people to switch at one time. If it's accurate, it means the officers decided to defect and had enough support from their troops to do it. That's how large groups of troops defected before: they retain their organization.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
Zophar posted:Egypt, Tunisia, and Bahrain didn't push futures speculators to raise the price of gas by nearly a dollar per gallon. This is dumb: the best way for the price of gas and oil to recover would be a quick Gaddafi victory.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
Zophar posted:I never said it was a *smart* move. So your argument is what, exactly, let's lay out the causal chain you're thinking here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 00:32
|
|
|
Zophar posted:Well of course, I was responding to evilweasel's assertion that restoring his power would be the quickest way to stabilize prices, but anybody can see that's doubly stupid (not to mention morally bankrupt) for a variety of reasons. At least this way the administration can say they're doing something to address the gas woes and still be the good guys. Your argument makes no sense. There's not even a way to begin to attack it because it's so schizophrenic, but it seems to rely on the assumption there are a lot of people who really care about gas prices but who are too dumb to figure out what would cause them to go up, which is retarded.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
pylb posted:Just saw that a usually reliable and well informed french newspaper (Canard Enchaine) had published that France's intelligence agency (DGSE) had delivered 105mm canons and AA batteries to the rebels. Maybe they shoulda left out the AA guns.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
Jut posted:Never said I agree with him. I don't like the double standards involved. It's better to have a double standard where you do some good things than a single standard of none.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 14:59
|
|
|
Umiapik posted:Hang on, when did this 'no-fly' zone expand to be a 'no tanks or armoured vehicles' zone..? The resolution wasn't for a no-fly zone, it was for the use of force (without specification except the ban on an occupation) to protect civilians (and implicitly, though not explicitly, the rebels). Everyone recognized it was too late for a no-fly zone to work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Just said that they haven't decided (or rather, refuse to specify) whether or not they would stop attacking Gaddafi's forces if they stopped advancing. I think it's more they aren't willing to commit publicly. We don't want to come out and say we'd like a regime change, even though everyone and their dog knows that's the result we'd like to see, because we want to give the impression we're intervening as little as possible. Basically, I don't think there's a lack of decision on how far to proceed, as a desire to keep on the right side of the politics of the intervention as much as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:A little beyond that, even. He said that he wouldn't say what the response would be in a situation where the rebels were advancing on a loyalist position. That situation appears to be an inevitability. Already happening, according to some reports.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:It's pretty simple to say that they won't fire on advancing Rebel troops at the moment, since the Rebels have not yet bombarded populated cities, cut medical/food/water/power to civilian areas, or engaged in massacres. He doesn't mean will they bomb the rebels, he means will the coalition attack loyalist forces that are defending territory against rebel attack.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:I wasn't trying to insinuate that the coalition would fire on advancing rebels. That's almost completely out of the question. The question is: will the coalition fire on fixed loyalist positions that are the target of advancing rebel forces? My guess is that it will depend on the situation: if the rebels will win without it, then no. If it's necessary for the rebel advance, they'll find a pretext, but the goal is to minimize the overt involvement in the rebel advance to aid in the political side of this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
PlasticPaddy posted:I haven't really been keeping up with this, but does Gaddafi have any chance of retaining power? Yes, a reasonably good one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
Vir posted:If an evil genius quantum leaped into his body tonight, he might be able to play this to a sort of stalemate where he stays in power for a while. His main problem, though, it that he's Muammar Gaddafi. His actions are not exactly informed by careful analysis. He may sound crazy, but the man managed to tear apart a rebellion that looked like it was going to destroy him easily in a month. Don't underestimate him, he hasn't kept control of Libya this long by mistake.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:But that was before it started raining JDAMs. JDAM's won't take a city back.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
Mattimer posted:He also had the added benefit of artillery and airstrikes and tanks, oh my Yes, but he also managed to hold together that army from revolting. It's not impressive his army beat the rebel army. What is impressive was that he still had that army when rebels were attempting to besiege Tripoli. The rebel army has to be able to take cities without destroying them, unlike Quadaffi. This isn't over, and it's not time to pop the champagne just because Benghazai was saved.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
Mattimer posted:He managed to hold together that army from revolting because they had the toys on their side. When they looked up into the sky, they saw their artillery raining down on their enemy and they saw their planes providing their support. It wasn't a question of morale. It was largely a question of tribal loyalties. You don't seem to have any real grasp of what was involved here: the trick is keeping the army units with the heavy toys loyal. You're completely missing the actual danger he was facing and acting as if tanks, planes, and artillery drive themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
waffle posted:Yesterday, there was that tweet that made the rounds about all the Gadhafi forces in Zintan defecting to the revolution--has anyone heard anything substantiating that? That seems like it'd be a decent start at trying to figure out the likely situation into the future for his forces, if true My impression would be if you don't see it in the news the next day, it probably didn't happen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:So it may have been mentioned in this thread but it moves so fast I cant keep up. I'm not really sure what you're asking, but the relevant international law on it would depend on analogies to a blockade (an act of war) and also the relevance of Security Council authorization (which makes it "legal" according to international law, but that may not be relevant to the question of if it's an act of war). Ultimately though it's a pretty irrelevant question, we're bombing them and nobody's going to seriously complain they shouldn't shoot back if they want (though it's probably not a wise move for the operators themselves).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Page 32&33 in the D&D forum has a good discussion around it if your still curious. The D&D discussion is more on the War Powers Resolution, I'm not sure if that's what he's asking about or not.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:At this point, I approve of the strikes, but Kucinich is right to inquire if Obama's handling of this is impeachable. And if it turns out it is, then Obama needs to be impeached for breaking the law. I mentioned this in D&D, I think, but the WPR doesn't actually ban this, what it does is say it's the opinion of Congress that the President has no constitutional authority to use military force except in a declared war, an emergency, or congressional authorization, and then lays out the procedure for congressional authorization in an emergency. The actual question - if the WPR's interpretation of the Constitution is correct - is a constitutional issue, not a legislative issue: in other words, it's legal or illegal regardless of the WPR (the constitutionality of the WPR is therefore irrelevant). The Supreme Court has never (and probably will never) decided the constitutional dispute, so it's essentially a political issue. Congress can either choose to enforce its interpretation of the Constitution through formal censure/impeachment, or it can (as it has previously) refuse to press its claim. As it currently exists, the de facto law is that the President can do this. If you want that changed, Kucinich is correct: this is really the only way. I don't agree with his constitutional interpretation, but formal impeachment proceedings are the only real way for Congress to win its constitutional claim. Politically speaking though, I don't think Congress will ever win this fight, and the Supreme Court will never, ever get involved. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Yep, it is my understanding that the SCOTUS does not intervene regarding situations where congress willingly abdicates certain responsibilities to the president. Not quite, they almost certainly wouldn't intervene if Congress itself sued or the like. Its more the Supreme Court has certain subjects that it simply refuses to get involved with ("political question" doctrine) and this strikes me as the best example: the Supreme Court is never going to issue the sort of orders to the military that would be required in this sort of dispute ("the air force is directed to get out of country X", ect). If Congress wants that, the Congress can deal with it itself and impeach the President, and the Supreme Court isn't going to do it for them. It has intervened in cases where Congress delegated excessive authority to executive branch officials (or even the President) and yanked it back. The line-item veto is one example. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:26 |
|
|
Freigeist posted:Has anyone else been checking out this guy for a chuckle? A crazy person's twitter account, you don't say. This is interesting and relevant!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 02:22
|
|