|
superv0zz posted:Yes because they certainly haven't taken an interest over the last 15 years eh? Try 50. But yeah I'm not sure what's "suspicious" here.
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
A Good Dog posted:Am I really supposed to feel sorry for the cracker extra-nationals that haven't been able to flee Libya with their pockets full of stolen money? Who exactly are you referring to?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:Are the airstrikes even still happening? From the sounds of it, a big rear end chunk of the air force has either defected, gone over to "Free Libya", or ditched in the desert. From what I've heard there were two jets that defected and landed on Malta, and another one where the pilots ejected after refusing an order to bomb civilians (and let the plane crash in an uninhabited area) - do you have a source on more?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Yeah hopefully Italy or Malta could provide airfields open to defecting Libyan forces and say so, though that's probably very unrealistic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:It's likely that after the first 2 defected to Malta they started only fueling the planes enough to bomb and return, thus forcing the third defector to bail out and let the plane crash. I wonder about possibilities of landing in Egypt? Not that it's stable there but it seems like defecting Libyan forces might be more welcomed in Egyptian borders, and the border isn't that far from Benghazi
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
Sivias posted:What the gently caress has this guy spending all his oil money on for the last 42 loving years!? His wardrobe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
Xandu posted:This will sound too simplistic, but it's the sense I've gotten following these protests. People in Egypt and Tunisia, et al have always hated their leaders and felt oppressed, the countries were "stable," but always teetering on the edge. Watching Tunisia succeed gave people hope and made them realize that they too could kick out their leaders and change their society. Partly this and I think technology also plays a role. Not that I think any of this stuff is a "Facebook revolution" the way some in the media have called it, but for most of recent history the only mass media in these countries was state controlled media, so people had much less ability to communicate and more importantly much less awareness of what was going on in other countries. The internet - and more specifically, mobile access to it - has largely taken away the state's monopoly on communication, and that has helped these things dramatically (it's also why we are less likely to see this sort of thing happen in a place like North Korea where the state still has that monopoly).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
IIRC Gaddafi had a bunch of body doubles so I can imagine someone seeing some Gaddafi-looking dude with crazy robes and such dead on the street and assuming it's the real deal and alerting some media source about it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Iran is an interesting case. When the Green Revolution was underway, I didn't recall oil price3s jumping appreciably. The Green Revolution protests got a decent amount of media coverage but I don't think they were anywhere near as extensive as what's happening in Libya. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Iranian protesters were confined largely to a certain demographic of the youth (and I think, more well off youth) in Tehran while the rest of the country didn't really join in. Whereas in Libya the protesters are actually taking control of large areas of the country and unrest is everywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:The point I was trying to make was that for whatever reason there wasn't a direct connect between unrest in Iran and the price of oil. Right and what I'm saying is that if the unrest in Iran was nearly as extensive as the unrest in Libya, there might well have been. As much as I applaud the bravery of those who were protesting in Iran, I don't think the regime was in any real danger. Gaddafi on the other hand is much more likely on the way out, and it's pretty clear that he intends to take a lot of his country's infrastructure - and population - with him. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Feb 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
yea that video made my day
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Pleads posted:Heaven forbid they add a few tens of billions of dollars to the trillions in debt to themselves they'll never pay back. A lot of our debt belongs to China who, I suspect, have pretty strong feelings against our going into Libya given that they have been investing a lot of money there lately - especially in oil.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
Is it known where Gaddafi physically is right now? I'm kind of imagining a scenario where the anti-Gaddafi forces finally take Tripoli, storm a bunker and find a guy that looks just like him, wearing his robes and everything, and either kill or or hand him over to the UN for war crimes trials and then celebrating for a couple hours before the real Gadaffi gets in front of a camera in Samarkand or something. "Surprise! Still alive!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Okay, point. The US does kind of have a disproportionate amount of corruption compared to their quality of life, though. Most of those countries have poor living conditions because of their poor governments. In the US you live well but it's like you're actively trying to make your lives worse. I don't think the standard of living is significantly lower in Italy or Spain or even in most of the Balkans than it is in the US, and the corruption in some of these places - Italy especially - is far worse. Those that do have worse standards of living do so largely because of other factors (including the involvement of other nations), not just corruption.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
Regardless of whether or not CG is currently using his "elite troops" I find it hard to imagine that there is anyone left on his side at this point that is fighting for anything other than money. There's very little chance his regime will last and I have a feeling that retributions against those who stayed on CQ's side for too long will be pretty fierce, given the brutality that we've already seen from him, so I'm guessing that those left on his side are out to make a paycheck and then find a way out of the country before the regime falls. That means they will probably only put up with so much real heavy fighting before they too turn on him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Yes you see Al Queda somehow convinced half the Libyan populace to take 6000 sleeping pills each and then, while they were asleep and half dead, attacked them with dream magick turning them into Islamist zombies controlled by the western media.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:The earlier resignation of the PM in Egypt has gone down well: That's a great sign. Still a lot of work to do and a lot that could go wrong but it's really encouraging to see the different "sides" really listening to each other (or at least seeming to)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2011 16:18
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:Also, what's the currently accepted term for the non-Gaddafi side? It seems to have gone from 'Protesters' to 'Opposition' to 'Rebels'. Are people still saying 'Rebels'? Yeah I'd say they are rebels now. Once you get to the point of using tanks and artillery it's not really a "protest" anymore, it's a war - or at least, a rebellion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:But there is a big move away from the traditional idea of 'might is right' so making sure countries stay within international law is pretty important, especially when the actions of these British and Dutch soldiers would have otherwise been a crime against peace. Pretty sure "might is right" is the idea that is still very much in place which is why the US has been conducting combat operations in nations we aren't at war with since the 60's. Have the US ever been punished for this? I'd say that, and the fact that the US has effectively made itself exempt from international war crimes trials, pretty much spells out that "might is right" is the real current "law". Earwicker fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Mar 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:It's the unfortunate effect of sovereignty but I'd rather see 99% of derogations punished than let them go without any censure at all. Me too, but given the rather large list of unpunished war crimes and other illegal activities that have gone on, a handful of Dutch marines rescuing a couple of their civilian countrymen seems a fairly low priority in terms of what to deal with and I can't imagine much more "punishment" resulting from this did beyond some politicians saying they condemn the action.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:I'm sure we'll finally decide to really, for serious think about doing something in Libya a week after the last rebel-held city falls. I know it's a bit more complicated than playing Civ 5 or something, but they've had weeks and weeks and weeks to do something. The problem is no one wants to do it unilaterally or without certain partners involved, and getting the right group of nations involved in doing it is what takes so long. I wouldn't trust the US to go in alone, and probably neither do many Arab states.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
Cartouche posted:Agreed. On one hand I want for more "local" countries to act rather than sticking our (USA) necks out once again, but it really feels like a deer-caught-in-headlights inaction all around. Frustrating as all hell. Uh... ok, I wasn't talking about the US "sticking our necks out", but rather the US or any other major western power acting unilaterally would be interpreted (probably correctly) as a grab for Libyan resources. Which might well be what's happening anyway. Let Gadaffi kill the rebels and then the US can go and remove him from power to "punish" him and occupy the country (and its resources) without having to deal with a pesky democracy-minded rebel government to get in the way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Boots on the ground is much different than bombing things in airplanes, but you know that so I assume you're either ignorant or trolling. But he has a point - the US does not have a good track record with these kind of interventions, we usually do have shady ulterior motives. And that stands true of the UK and France as well. quote:It is myopic to treat this as a US intervention and then claim, on the base of that misstatement, that the US should accordingly intervene unilaterally other places. Well, it's very much a Western intervention, so it does actually lead to the question of why - if this is really a purely humanitarian mission - the same kind of intervention is not occurring on other areas where there is or has been a humanitarian crisis, regardless of whether its the US, UK, or France leading it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 15:12
|
|
|
farraday posted:The operations we're talking about here are really only as effective as they've been because they're against coherent and relatively well equipped governmental forces acting in a unified manner under color of their military. Tell me how that applies to most humanitarian crises and I'll agree. I think that same argument could have applied to Sri Lanka, or Myanmar, or even Bahrain. I see your point but it still seems pretty selective to me. AllanGordon posted:Yeah, it's to our benefit to remove Ghaddaffi from power and obviously we share this with the rebels. You can still do good for selfish reasons. Our participation in both world wars were for entirely selfish reason as well and I think they both benefited the world. I don't think WW1 was very beneficial at all really, nor do I see how our involvement was a good thing, but that's for another thread. quote:Seems kind of silly for us not to do anything due to America's prior reputation either. I see the work being done in Libya as part of the "war" for hearts and minds that we kind of forgot about during the early years of Afghanistan and Iraq. I guess what I'm more worried about is what comes next. Troops on the ground or no, I just have a hard time imagining that the western powers involved in the fight (and yes in spite of what the Arab League said, it's still primarily western powers involved in the fight) will allow any new government to come to power that isn't some form of puppet, and that generally doesn't end well. Anyway I'm not trying to say definitively that this shouldn't be happening or anything, just that the motives of the US, UK, France, the Arab League, etc. should always be questioned and it shouldn't be assumed that this is just about humanitarianism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:I'm just trying to say that the Hutus and Tutsis didn't stop being bffs because of colonialism or Western interference in general. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/Africa/Rwanda01.htm posted:The functional differentiation between the Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa was, in large part, a creation of colonialism. After gaining Rwanda from the Germans following World War I, the Belgian authorities systematized indirect rule over Rwanda through Tutsis who had been educated at a missionary-run school. This method of governance, combined with the Tutsi elite's recognition that supporting the ethnic hierarchy created by the colonialists would benefit them, led to a "substantialization of Tutsi superiority" and its "institutionalization in the colonial state apparatus." Shortly before Rwandan independence, however, the Belgian colonial administra-tion became fearful of the ascendance of the educated Tutsi elite and replaced Tutsi chiefs and sub-chiefs with Hutus. Violent conflicts, largely along ethnic lines, resulted, compelling the United Nations (U.N.) to intervene and oversee elections in 1961.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 15:43
|
|
|
Baddog posted:Pretty much your whole post? Although to be fair, I think you might have been high as gently caress. If you are going to say that we should be in Libya because Gaddafi is No you are still missing the point. None of those were the main argument for going to war, as presented by those who were in favor of it. The argument was that Hussein presented a danger to the US and thus a full on invasion was necessary, not that he was cruel or unstable or murdered his own people. No one is trying to draw connections between Gadaffi and 9/11 or claim that he's sitting on piles of yellowcake. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:In 2002 2003 Bush et al made the argument that we had to invade because Saddam was a bad man who "gassed his own people". They made lots of arguments. The "humanitarian intervention" angle was definitely there. Even more so in Afghanistan. Those arguments were made but they were never the primary argument, which always specifically involved Saddam being a danger to the US and Israel and possessing weapons of mass destruction. These arguments were especially relevant to the US's unilateral approach. Meanwhile, no one at all is attempting to make these claims about Libya being a danger to other countries.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Iraq had significant anti Saddam forces such as the Sadrist milita and the Kurds. IIRC Hussein was barely if at all in control of what is called Kurdistan in Iraq in 2003. The Kurds were trying to form a breakaway Kurdish nation in their own region - as they have been trying to do for a very long time, not trying to reform/replace the government of Iraq itself. It's really not at all the same kind of situation. The Libyan rebels are not trying to form a new autonomous republic in a specific area based on ethnic or religious lines - they are trying to form a new Libya, one that doesn't involve Gadaffi.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
Baddog posted:No, I'm pretty sure western interventionist policy is pretty drat consistent, for good or bad, democratic or republican administration. You just don't want to be honest with yourself and admit it, and would rather resort to dismissive snark against anything that violates your narrative of a completely just war. No, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between this no fly zone, and a full scale invasion and occupation justified by deceit and fear mongering, and you just don't want to be honest with yourself and admit it, and would rather resort to dismissive snark against anything that violates your narrative of being the Lone Voice of Reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
Baddog posted:There was a significant civilian uprising in Iraq (one which we actually were trying to protect with almost ten years of an established nofly zone). No there wasn't an uprising in pre-invasion Iraq that even remotely compared to what's happened in Libya. The uprising in Libya involved portions of the military and has claimed entire cities and regions of the country prior to any outside intervention. Not really the case with Iraq. Yes there have been Kurds fighting for independence - and not just from Iraq, but also from Turkey (and not because they wanted to replace Saddam with democracy but because they want their own state) - but that had been going on for a long time and the US never gave much of a poo poo about the welfare of Kurds until we were looking for reasons to invade in 03. quote:People only remember the WMD argument/lie because that was the most compelling, and what was used to try to get UN backing, but there were many other reasons as well. Yes other reasons were thrown around but the primary reason for invasion was a supposed danger to the United States. If helping out the Kurds really had anything to do with it, we'd have withdrawn our support from Iraq back when they first started gassing them in the loving 1980's instead of actively helping out Iraq by trying to pin the massacres of Kurds on Iran.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 21:03
|
|