|
Mr. Self Destruct posted: You're a loving nut, that's what you are.Edit: I'm not going to say that the media isn't biased, or that the US and NATO are universal forces of good, but for God's sake, come on.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2025 20:48 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Reuters has compressed this thread into a 60 second video: Haha, it's like a trailer for a movie. LIBYA: BLOODLETTING COMING SOON
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Drunk & Ugly posted:Haha, it's like a trailer for a movie. LIBYA: BLOODLETTING We need more loving explosions!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
What will become of the sexy Amazon bodyguard brigade?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
I have found an image that sums up the entire Libyan Revolution:- Whoever painted that is my goddamn hero. This was taken from the incredible photo gallery over at the atlantic
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
Rasler posted:It's like two really awful people trying to kill each other while you watch. You're glad that one of them finally got killed, but you've still got the other one standing in the room with you afterwards...and poo poo, those two guys were friends five minutes ago. NATO did have ulterior motives for doing it. Obviously, it's NATO. But they didn't take out Gaddafi and his people. The rebels are the ones who did most of the work. They didn't do it like they did in Iraq. They just greatly helped the rebels. But they didn't end it. The rebels did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
etalian posted:What will become of the sexy Amazon bodyguard brigade? Currently hiding in Silvio Berlusconi's bedroom. It's Bunga-Bunga time! quote:NATO did have ulterior motives for doing it. Obviously, it's NATO. The analogy was meant in the general terms of NATO vs Gaddafi, not just the specific act of Gaddafi's death. Rasler fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
I think the biggest hypocritical thing about NATO is how they won't intervene in Syria or Yemen, both nations who have pretty much the exact same circumstances as Libya with Gaddafi over diplomatic and strategic intentions, rather than over the people of both countries. Russia really needs to stop thinking it's the cold war, nobody wants to invade Russia anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:I think the biggest hypocritical thing about NATO is how they won't intervene in Syria or Yemen, both nations who have pretty much the exact same circumstances as Gaddafi over diplomatic and strategic intentions, rather than the people of both countries themselves. Syria and Yemen are both also 4x the size of Libya, population-wise, and the rebellion (in Syria, at least, I'm less familiar with Yemen) is much, much less organized. Also, NATO had leverage with Libya; they have less with Yemen and none (save Turkey) with Syria.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Syria and Yemen are both also 10x the size of Libya, population-wise, and the rebellion (in Syria, at least, I'm less familiar with Yemen) is much, much less organized. It's the lesser of two evils though. Assad and Saleh are just going to kill more and more and more until the situation becomes something like North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
Rasler posted:The analogy was meant in the general terms of NATO vs Gaddafi, not just the specific act of Gaddafi's death. I understand that. It's that NATO involvement greatly helped the rebels, but NATO wasn't on it's own there, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I have found an image that sums up the entire Libyan Revolution:- I want to high five the artist responsible for this. Hail and Kill. For anyone who doesnt know, this is the original: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:It's the lesser of two evils though. Assad and Saleh are just going to kill more and more and more until the situation becomes something like North Korea. The thing is, I can't really see a way for NATO to get involved. The countries are much larger and denser, and the militaries are still too strong. What can they do? A blockade won't do much. Air strikes would be difficult to coordinate. And the revolutionary forces aren't strong enough to make a big push either. I know it would be nice if NATO could be involved, but Syria and Yemen are much different issues than Libya. I think if NATO decided right now that it was going to attack Syrian military assets, you would easily trigger a regional war - with Russia possibly on the other side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:It's the lesser of two evils though. Assad and Saleh are just going to kill more and more and more until the situation becomes something like North Korea. So you want us to fight two more Iraqs? That's never going to fly. Libya almost didn't fly, and there were no ground troops involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:I think the biggest hypocritical thing about NATO is how they won't intervene in Syria or Yemen, both nations who have pretty much the exact same circumstances as Gaddafi over diplomatic and strategic intentions, rather than the people of both countries themselves. The US and NATO had a LOT of diplomatic support for intervention, including a specific request from the Arab League and a mandate from the UN Security Council. Russia will veto any Security Council measure regarding Syria, and Yemen hasn't reached the stage of "We need urgent NATO support NOW" in their revolution yet. (Which, last I heard, still has the possibility of peaceful resolution, however unlikely.) Right now, Obama has a lot of pressure on him in regards to the revolutions-On the one hand, there's the humanitarian urge to spread Democracy and prevent deaths. However, the US can't just park a carrier off the coast of Syria and start the airstrikes-there WILL be diplomatic consequences (Especially with Russia, who owns a Naval Base there) and those repercussions may prevent the US from undertaking more necessary actions in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Ignoring every other single factor about Yemen here's a main problem. The protestors have repeatedly avowed their desire to be non violent. It seems strange to call that a problem but consider then exactly what a no fly zone is supposed to do? Hell lets robustly kineticize this military action up and make it a no drive zone too. What exactly do they want? Bombs, as the anti intervention people are quick to say, are not humanitarian. At best they want us to be violent for them by proxy. I don't see that ending well. For what the protesters in Yemen want, they need blue helmets on the ground, not NATO intervention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
People need to realize that NATO is neither good nor bad the same way a gun is neither good nor bad. It's an organization capable of immense power projection. Power projection is merely a tool. If you agree with the ends and the means, it doesn't really matter what you think of the incredible constellation of diverse interests, individuals, and groups behind a NATO action. Citing comical russian propaganda isn't helpful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
farraday posted:Ignoring every other single factor about Yemen here's a main problem. The protestors have repeatedly avowed their desire to be non violent. It seems strange to call that a problem but consider then exactly what a no fly zone is supposed to do? Hell lets robustly kineticize this military action up and make it a no drive zone too. What exactly do they want? Bombs, as the anti intervention people are quick to say, are not humanitarian. At best they want us to be violent for them by proxy. I don't see that ending well. Generally I consider NATO intervention in Yemen if Saleh decides to tell his troops to attack everything. So it'd quickly develop into a situation like Libya.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
Medvedev removed his - albeit already mostly tacit - support from Assad a few days ago in a statement where his position was for Assad to go. But you know what, as far as I can tell, there have been no public statements from any significant NATO people explicitly saying that they are having problems with the technicalities of intervention in Syria and Yemen - because nobody inside NATO nor any outside bodies are actually putting pressure on NATO to intervene. It's not actually an issue for them. They just haven't seriously considered it. quote:
This is really naive, sorry. NATO is the unified response of western powers (that MEANS something, they're all capitalist democracies and all allies via NATO) to a problem using military force. It is a collective action of those powers and it doesn't matter how diverse they are, they all agree on something because they're all using NATO to achieve their goals. Whilst NATO could be correctly described as a "tool", you're ignorant of the fact that the powers behind that "tool" have common foreign policy strategies and objectives that they intend to meet via NATO, despite how diverse they may otherwise be. If any kind of diversity was behind NATO itself, it wouldnt actually work. Since you mentioned Russia, I'll point out that the reason Russia hates NATO is because it's an opposing power bloc sitting in its back yard, "interfering" with (quite sinister) russian interests. That same power bloc is interfering in the middle east for some very singular reasons. Rasler fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Some interesting information in this CNN article. In particular: CNN posted:According to Reuters, Libyan Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril said an already-injured Gadhafi was "hit in the head by a bullet" as someone - apparently anti-Gadhafi forces who had captured him - was driving him to a hospital Thursday. Jibril was citing what he said was a post-mortem report, according to Reuters. CNN posted:NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced on Thursday – hours after Moammar Gadhafi was killed – that the alliance eventually "will terminate our mission" in that North African nation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
that's the most bullshit i've ever heard lmao (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
Fog of war, man. Honestly better that way than being strung up like Saddam. What an embarrassing shitshow that was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Some interesting information in this CNN article. Oh come on, that's just gonna make it worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Ace Oliveira posted:I understand that. It's that NATO involvement greatly helped the rebels, but NATO wasn't on it's own there, is what I'm saying. Before NATO removed the air threat, Gadaffi's forces were actually winning the war. The rebels were not making any progress if I read correctly in the news articles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
The bullet wasn't shot from a gun, it was just some mean kids throwing them at him. The actual cause of death was sadness. Yeah, hit by a bullet. Pretty much a major face palm on that one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:Before NATO removed the air threat, Gadaffi's forces were actually winning the war. The rebels were not making any progress if I read correctly in the news articles. The Benghazi rebels weren't. But the Nafusa rebels were still going strong. That was a place were the Gaddafi forces weren't winning, since the terrain was to the rebels' advantage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:Before NATO removed the air threat, Gadaffi's forces were actually winning the war. The rebels were not making any progress if I read correctly in the news articles. Yup and they were really hurting for lack of heavy conventional forces, NATO involvement basically removed the ruling power's main advantage over the rebels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Here's the frontpages in the UK for tomorrow Here's a  gallery of post-mortem Muammar and Moatassim Gaddafi photos
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Here's the frontpages in the UK for tomorrow Thank god that there will be a page three girl to help people to get over all the gruesome pictures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
I love how UK papers (The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Mirror) in this case just give no fucks. "THAT'S FOR LOCKERBIE!" But where are the puns?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:
And to add insult to injury getting picture tagged on Facebook without his consent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
I'm guessing Libya at the moment looks like that scene from the end of Return of the Jedi after the Emperor dies. Tribal music, singing, dancing. Excised from the DVD version for being wildly out of place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Seeing those people so excited is all great and all but I recall how happy the Iraqis were when we "won" the Iraq war and wondered how happy they were when the different factions were fighting for supremacy after. From what I read, there are many factions in the rebel groups and not one will likely give up the want to be in charge. This is just the beginning of a full-on rebel war that will likely find those joyous individuals dead from bullet holes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:24
|
|
ThePutty posted:I think the biggest hypocritical thing about NATO is how they won't intervene in Syria or Yemen, both nations who have pretty much the exact same circumstances as Libya with Gaddafi over diplomatic and strategic intentions, rather than over the people of both countries. Russia really needs to stop thinking it's the cold war, nobody wants to invade Russia anymore. It isn't just the issue of consensus, it's a strategic issue. NATO intervention was effective in Libya because they could act as close air support in a civil war for rebel forces, with specific frontlines and areas to defend (Nafusa, Misrata, Benghazi). This is not the situation in Syria. Firstly, there isn't armed conflict in the first place, so there aren't front lines and the Syrian armed forces hasn't seen mass defections like Libya; they've almost uniformly stuck behind the regime. az jan jananam fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:Seeing those people so excited is all great and all but I recall how happy the Iraqis were when we "won" the Iraq war and wondered how happy they were when the different factions were fighting for supremacy after. From what I read, there are many factions in the rebel groups and not one will likely give up the want to be in charge. This is just the beginning of a full-on rebel war that will likely find those joyous individuals dead from bullet holes. Might as well have maintained the status quo instead of going into scary unknown territory. If there's any chance a revolution against a brutal leader will have a painful recovery process it should even be attempted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
az jan jananam posted:It isn't just the issue of consensus, it's a strategic issue. NATO intervention was effective in Libya because they could act as close air support in a civil war for rebel forces, with specific frontlines and areas to defend (Nafusa, Misrata, Benghazi). This is not the situation in Syria. Firstly, there isn't armed conflict in the first place, so there aren't front lines and the Syrian armed forces hasn't seen mass defections like Libya; they've almost uniformly stuck behind the regime. From articles, it seems like the Syrians want NATO to intervene so they can get together an armed force. The problem seems to be mobilizing them and getting together because of the mass crackdown. NATO issuing a No-Fly Zone would essentially blow up the powder keg with the lit fuse, that's inevitably going to blow up down the line. Better to have Syria on your side rather then hate you and condemn the west for not intervening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:From articles, it seems like the Syrians want NATO to intervene so they can get together an armed force. The problem seems to be mobilizing them and getting together because of the mass crackdown. NATO issuing a No-Fly Zone would essentially blow up the powder keg with the lit fuse, that's inevitably going to blow up down the line. Better to have Syria on your side rather then hate you and condemn the west for not intervening. The problem with Syria is that their armed forces are effective enough that airstrikes alone wouldn't do enough. NATO would have to get ground forces involved and that's just not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:I think the biggest hypocritical thing about NATO is how they won't intervene in Syria or Yemen, both nations who have pretty much the exact same circumstances as Libya with Gaddafi over diplomatic and strategic intentions, rather than over the people of both countries. Russia really needs to stop thinking it's the cold war, nobody wants to invade Russia anymore. That's getting close to Saudi Arabia which hates all these rebellions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:56
|
|
ThePutty posted:From articles, it seems like the Syrians want NATO to intervene so they can get together an armed force. The problem seems to be mobilizing them and getting together because of the mass crackdown. NATO issuing a No-Fly Zone would essentially blow up the powder keg with the lit fuse, that's inevitably going to blow up down the line. NATO intervening would light up a whole different type of powder keg. The comparisons to Libya aren't there. Upon the start of the revolution Libya was almost immediately expelled from the Arab League, an institution which ended up approving the 'no fly zone' (and kept quiet despite the loose interpretation thereof). Gaddafi was almost completely isolated except impotent African countries which had bribed over the years, and even 'resistance' groups like Hezbollah are cheering his downfall. Geopolitically, the intervention in Libya was as safe as it could get and had very good chances of success. The situation in Syria is diametrically different. Almost all of Syria's neighbors have an interest in seeing Assad in power (or slowly transitioning out of power). The Arab League hasn't been able to come up with a consensus to condemn Assad, and the Assad regime has its hands in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Gaza Strip. As of right now, the revolution in Syria is an internal problem, and Iran or Syrian proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas aren't publically standing against the revolutionaries. If NATO intervenes, the conflict takes on an entirely different nature. Simply bombing and arming the revolutionaries isn't a very viable strategy. The Syrian armed forces are disciplined, committed to Assad, and many of them are from minority groups that believe that they are literally fighting for the survival of their communities (and they have some legitimacy in believing that). The intervention would look more like Lebanon 1982 than Libya. I don't see any type of strategy in which "bomb Syria -> freedom" becomes viable on the level that it was in Libya. az jan jananam fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Oct 21, 2011 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2025 20:48 |
|
|
az jan jananam posted:NATO intervening would light up a whole different type of powder keg. The comparisons to Libya aren't there. Upon the start of the revolution Libya was almost immediately expelled from the Arab League, an institution which ended up approving the 'no fly zone' (and kept quiet despite the loose interpretation thereof). Gaddafi was almost completely isolated except impotent African countries which had bribed over the years, and even 'resistance' groups like Hezbollah are cheering his downfall. Geopolitically, the intervention in Libya was as safe as it could get and had very good chances of success. Hm, makes sense. What else can possibly be done though? Surely they're not going to just let Assad go his way and utterly rape everything in his nation until it's basically the Middle Eastern North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 00:05
|
|