|
|
I think everyone is too advanced for a real war to take place any more between two major powers, mutually assured destruction has been achieved with not just nukes, but traditional planes, boats, missiles, and tanks and such. It would be a bloodbath for both sides, rather than just an annihilation of one side.
MUSE: March 12th, 2010 United Center, Chicago
PSN name : Str1ker22
|
Tře
7842 posts
 - Brisbane, Australia
|
Lets not make this about Iraq. Clearly so far they are handling things differently in Libya than they are in Iraq. We can prolly all agree that Iraq was a complete disaster. That doesn't mean Libya is going to be.
Just like Brendan said. When you ask for airstrikes you'll have to expect civilian casualties.
|
|
|
On the outside at least a 'no fly zone' should probably be renamed.
Still I don't know what action I would of called for, I would be happy to let a revolution be just that, no outside interfereance. But you get into a situation where the UK, France and whoever else had been arming Gaddafi for basically what amounts to oil rights and I think it changes the situation.
Not entirely sure how though.
I suppose if it is what the people of Libya want then lets heed their call, maybe it can make up just a little for what the west has inflicted upon them by proxy.
As for US involvement?
I think that it shouldn't be necessary, and I think the US(politicians at least) are feeling a bit that way too. But for an operation like this they are probably needed. I haven't looked too much into it but I am guessing the US has distanced themselves from Libya after Lockerbie unlike other nations that are involved so they are maybe working out backroom deals as we speak so they can make it worth their while.
We shouldn't forget though that there is a large proportion of people all over the world that would gladly welcome US forces to help their situations out. A lot of these 2nd/3rd world nations still see the west and it's allies as potential liberators.
Honestly I think a NATO run operation would not be the best, it would draw it out extensively.
Say what you will about what the actual goal is and what they are trying to do, the best solution now is to kill Gaddafi, his family and high ranking tribe members as soon as possible. Sounds awful but you can't have a revolution without blood being spilled.
It's not what I feel is right but what I feel they have gotten themselves into.
So really it depends on if the people feel it's worth it.
Let's not forget too that China has roughly a 160 Billion dollar oil investment in Libya. Not sure what to make of that either.
|
|
|
And ya would it be better to have some civilian casualties? or Just let Gadaffis planes, tanks, and heavy armored vehicles the rebels don't have the firepower to destroy, mow down his own people for months to come?
MUSE: March 12th, 2010 United Center, Chicago
PSN name : Str1ker22
|
|
|
Not sure if that is a reply to me or not but I didn't say anything like whatever it is you are insinuating.
It makes no sense.
|
|
|
Quote
paztopia :
Not sure if that is a reply to me or not but I didn't say anything like whatever it is you are insinuating.
It makes no sense.
it was a further comment on the civilian casualties commentary, not your post.
MUSE: March 12th, 2010 United Center, Chicago
PSN name : Str1ker22
|
|
|
Ahh, fair nuff. 
Wasn't sure I agree with that too in a roundabout kind of way.
|
|
|
Quote
Origin Of Bliss :
And ya would it be better to have some civilian casualties? or Just let Gadaffis planes, tanks, and heavy armored vehicles the rebels don't have the firepower to destroy, mow down his own people for months to come?
I assume you mean it's better to have some collateral casualties as a result of our action, rather than see them killed by Gaddafi? I suppose you have a point. But if we're intervening in the interest of the Libyan people, and are only there to stop them being killed, then why do our air forces continue to attack targets with a civilian presence?
It's well accepted that the US has a flagrant disregard for collateral damage, no matter their stated goal. Just look at the bombing of Baghdad back in 2003. Many reports coming out of Libya suggest collateral damage and casualties are high, and that the attacks barely seem precise at all.
The latest news is that Nato will take over command of the no-fly zone.
Quote
Britain, France and the US have agreed that Nato will take over the military command of the no-fly zone over Libya in a move that represents a setback for Nicolas Sarkozy, who had hoped to diminish the role of the alliance.
Barack Obama agreed in separate phone calls with Sarkozy and David Cameron that political oversight would be handed to a separate body made up of members of the coalition, including Arab countries such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which are outside Nato.
The agreement, which will have to be put be to all 28 members of Nato, indicates the alliance is on course to resolve one of its most serious disagreements. The alliance had been starting to splinter as it tried to comply with Obama's demand that Washington be quickly relieved of command of the air campaign.
We all know how it went in Yugoslavia in the late 90's when Nato got involved 
|
|
|
What war have civilians NOT been killed? I challenge a country other than united states to wage a war with advanced weaponry where the targets are dispersed through populated areas and not kill some civilians. Is it even possible? Shooting missiles and bombs only near unpopulated areas would have a better, but the whole time you would be crippling the whole point of the operation.
So far i think all the right moves have been made by obama. If he reacted to fast, the international community could have jumped on him for going for it too soon and being the typical recklass gunhappy president everyone expects the country to be. Except he did not consult congress..... LBJ got rid of that law though i believe a long time ago (the whole 90 days for a president to wage war without ground troops before consulting congress). It was better to let another countries leader bring it up. Of course some people jumped on him for being to late, but i think he showed prudence.
All depends on the endgame/how the international community reacts to the new libya and if they mess with it.
MUSE: March 12th, 2010 United Center, Chicago
PSN name : Str1ker22
|
|
|
Quote
Origin Of Bliss :
What war have civilians NOT been killed? I challenge a country other than united states to wage a war with advanced weaponry where the targets are dispersed through populated areas and not kill some civilians. Is it even possible? Shooting missiles and bombs only near unpopulated areas would have a better, but the whole time you would be crippling the whole point of the operation.
True, an amount of civilian collateral is inevitable. But the United States has a long history of killing civilians far outside of acceptable levels. I'll try to keep it recent, many people consider the 80's and 90's a long time ago, for some reason.
Just the other week, a drone attack in Pakistan killed 35 people.
Here's an interesting article I found on drone attacks, and 'precise' attacks on specific targets. In fact, you could just look at the dozens of sources at the bottom of this Wikipedia page to get an idea of how the US gets its business done. And that's just the stuff that gets out and is actually reported.
In the last 36 hours, forces sent in to rescue a downed pilot in Libya opened fire on the very people trying to help him. Other reports are saying some might have been killed in the 'rescue'.
I'll give it a few days before I really start looking for reports of dead civilians in Libya though. All I know is that it's classic double standards from the West.
|
|
|
Quote
no-name :
Quote
Origin Of Bliss :
What war have civilians NOT been killed? I challenge a country other than united states to wage a war with advanced weaponry where the targets are dispersed through populated areas and not kill some civilians. Is it even possible? Shooting missiles and bombs only near unpopulated areas would have a better, but the whole time you would be crippling the whole point of the operation.
True, an amount of civilian collateral is inevitable. But the United States has a long history of killing civilians far outside of acceptable levels. I'll try to keep it recent, many people consider the 80's and 90's a long time ago, for some reason.
Just the other week, a drone attack in Pakistan killed 35 people.
Here's an interesting article I found on drone attacks, and 'precise' attacks on specific targets. In fact, you could just look at the dozens of sources at the bottom of this Wikipedia page to get an idea of how the US gets its business done. And that's just the stuff that gets out and is actually reported.
In the last 36 hours, forces sent in to rescue a downed pilot in Libya opened fire on the very people trying to help him. Other reports are saying some might have been killed in the 'rescue'.
I'll give it a few days before I really start looking for reports of dead civilians in Libya though. All I know is that it's classic double standards from the West.
i don't think the drones even have good enough leads on targets to begin with. If they actually got good sighting and ground confirmation, they might be much more focused on the right enemy. But activity from the air can look like anything.
As for the rescued pilots, that reminds me of black hawk down rescues, the rescuers are paranoid all the Libyan people approaching their pilots are enemies. I don't think it's something soldiers are trained well enough. They get briefed to go into a potentially hostile country with potentially hostile quadaffi soldiers and supporters, and they probably trained them to shoot at anyone who approaches the soldiers with guns, as they would in any hostage situation. i don't know if these Libyans with the pilots had guns or not. The whole US military needs training into signaling friendly or hostile locals. This can obviously be abused if a soldier is under gunpoint and such.
MUSE: March 12th, 2010 United Center, Chicago
PSN name : Str1ker22
|
Tře
7842 posts
- Brisbane, Australia
|
According to Politiken (Link in Danish), the anti-NATO countries are loosening up. France is looking like they will support NATO taking control after having a phone meeting with UK and US last night. And apparently Turkey is also looking like they're in support now too after Obama talked to Erdogan (prime minister of Turkey). A vote still needs to pass.
|
|
|
Quote
Origin Of Bliss :
Everyone gives the united states shit constantly for leading attacks and forces, we take all the bad press, and not one other country is going to step up and show it has some balls?
To be honest... its the job your country wanted when it took over from the British Empire as the worlds most powerful nation. No point throwing the toys out of the pram.
And its not a matter of not having balls... its a sensitive political shit storm and no one wants to ruin their career over this. Why would Britain or France, who are more than capable of doing this mission alone, want to tarnish their own credibility further when the lumbering war giant U.S.A is willing to take the finger point.
The U.K politicians I imagine are weary about this kind of thing as the last time Britian, with France, went to war in north Africa together over Suez.. despite winning the war, came out of it tarred and feathered politically.
Quote
Doos :
Well to be fair, the US is probably the only nation in the world that can afford to make war on its own. No other country has enough weapons, resources and influence.
Not true.
Quote
no-name :
And the UK laps it up and follows them wherever they go.
Not true, we didn't go to Vietnam despite being asked to, more than once.
Quote
no-name :
Make no mistake, Cameron and Sarkozy would have needed Obama's OK to go ahead with the Libya thing.
Obviously, war politics has changed since the days of crusades, and any major intervention nowadays requires substantial backing from a majority of nations.. if, and I speak hypothetically, the U.S wanted to wage war and no one else in the U.N agreed, they would also not be able to do anything without very serious repercussions and they would have to have a long hard think for once instead of running in guns blazing... to put it plainly, you wouldn't go picking a fight in a dangerous neighbourhood without at least knowing you had people on your side who posses a shit load of guns if things go wrong.
Quote
Origin Of Bliss :
I think everyone is too advanced for a real war to take place any more between two major powers, mutually assured destruction has been achieved with not just nukes, but traditional planes, boats, missiles, and tanks and such. It would be a bloodbath for both sides, rather than just an annihilation of one side.
Exactly. The birth of devastating weapons changed the face of war, it made it less personal and because of this, people can forget how much devestation is being caused on the battlefield. It has meant that major powers like the U.S, U.K, France, Russia, China etc.. could not just wage war any more... if the world reverted back to how it once was now, with Britain and France for example conducting 100 year wars etc... the face of the planet would be scorched forever and everyone in the world would probably die.
As for NATO taking control... I don't even want to know, I suppose if it gets the middle eastern countries to deal with their own shit then good...
It appears that Washington can't rid its hands of this quick enough and while the U.K and France will now also be happy to be less in the spotlight, there will most probably be un mentioned meddling going on from all sides involved and not involved (Russia/China) from here on out, with each major power the west (US UK France) and the East (Russia China) quietly trying to increase their own influence without actually being inside the country in a military sense.
You got some nerve, coming here.
I hate to agree with Barnaby, but the fact is, hes right.
|
|
|
Obama only went into this with the understanding that someone else would be running the show by the end of the week.
Just this second, American news is reporting that the US has fired 162 cruise missiles since this thing began, at a cost of about $1.1 million a piece. And that Britain has fired 12. That's the kind of thing that will make most Americans ask why the hell we're there at all. Also, France, who actually jumped the gun so they could be the ones to shoot first, has done absolutely nothing since those first shots were fired. It's just laughable. Can't make it up.
The US promptly lost its shit and declared war on the very notion of terrorism, entering into an armed conflict against an abstract concept like only America can.
And after we beat Terrorism, were gonna beat Drugs! Then were going to take on Sadness!
|
|
|
Quote
tchocky :
Just this second, American news is reporting that the US has fired 162 cruise missiles since this thing began, at a cost of about $1.1 million a piece. And that Britain has fired 12. That's the kind of thing that will make most Americans ask why the hell we're there at all. Also, France, who actually jumped the gun so they could be the ones to shoot first, has done absolutely nothing since those first shots were fired. It's just laughable. Can't make it up.
Can you quote that news source? I don't doubt that the U.S navy has fired that many, in fact, I am shocked it was only that many! Quite restrained really, I'm impressed.
I just fail to believe that France has done 'nothing' since the initial opening shots... They also didn't seem to take into account the 'Storm Shadow' cruise missiles that have been fired continuously from RAF Tornado's over the past few days, they have just mentioned the Tomahawks fired from the one Royal navy sub in the area, which can only carry 20 odd of the missiles anyway according to the Telegraph.
I guess the difference being that Britain has to buy Tomahawks from the U.S at a large price...and whatever missiles are used, benefits the companies in America that makes them.. same for the U.S ships... whereas Storm Shadows are a British/French missile benefiting companies at home and costing a lot less to us to use.
It is all relative I guess.
You got some nerve, coming here.
I hate to agree with Barnaby, but the fact is, hes right.
|
|
|
I hear it on a national morning news program, Morning Joe. I will try to find a print source some time today.
The US promptly lost its shit and declared war on the very notion of terrorism, entering into an armed conflict against an abstract concept like only America can.
And after we beat Terrorism, were gonna beat Drugs! Then were going to take on Sadness!
|
|
|
Quote
Western warplanes have flown more than 300 sorties over Libya in recent days and more than 162 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired.
Source: BBC News
Quote
Nato says it will start naval patrols on Wednesday to enforce an arms embargo on Libya. Major partners in the international alliance operating over Libya have been thrashing out a new command structure that will tone down US leadership.
Seems like everyone is agreeing to NATO control. Oh, and Russia is gonna be mad about losing those weapons sales.
Facebook|Twitter
James Lewis wants to say he isnt racist. Racism is a crime, and crime is for black people. - Nick Pollard
|
|
|
The fact is,....Americans are SICK AND FUCKING tired of war. No-name is correct in that we have plenty on our plate here at home. While I support a limited role for us in Libya, the British should be running that show. NOT NATO. Great Britain. Leave a US Carrier there and give the Brits reasonable command and control. If even one American boot sets foot on Libyan soil, that's it for Obama politically.
Libya being a former Italian colony, they should perhaps be in command of the military operation. But I frankly doubt their competence. No offense intended, but the Brits can and should be in charge.
Edit* Apparently, we (the US) went back and bombed that crashed F-15 overnight last night. To keep the Libyans from harvesting top-secret avionics no doubt.
The US promptly lost its shit and declared war on the very notion of terrorism, entering into an armed conflict against an abstract concept like only America can.
And after we beat Terrorism, were gonna beat Drugs! Then were going to take on Sadness!
|
|
|
I would rather we weren't running anything.
Great Britain has seen more wars in the last 3000 years than I think it needs to have done... I am frightened to actually research just how many wars this nation has seen since its humble beginnings.
You got some nerve, coming here.
I hate to agree with Barnaby, but the fact is, hes right.
|
|
|
Quote
barnabyfox :
I would rather we weren't running anything.
Great Britain has seen more wars in the last 3000 years than I think it needs to have done... I am frightened to actually research just how many wars this nation has started since its humble beginnings.
Fixed :P
|
Doos
6924 posts
 - Nijmegen
|
Quote
no-name :
Quote
barnabyfox :
I would rather we weren't running anything.
Great Britain has seen more wars in the last 3000 years than I think it needs to have done... I am frightened to actually research just how many wars this nation has been involved in since its humble beginnings.
Fixed :P
Fixed  .
Your rich military history is actually the reason I'm studying in Swansea right now.
“I swear that if I hear anyone calling us Holland instead of the Netherlands, I kill him!” ~ Angry Dutch on calling the Netherlands Holland (Uncyclopedia)
Come on sucker lick my battery
|
Tře
7842 posts
- Brisbane, Australia
|
Some news on the situation in Libya:
Apparently Gaddafi's headquarters have been attacked by an American airstrike.
Some Gaddafi-snipers have killed 16 people in Misrata close to Tripoli.
John Boehner, speaker of the House of Representatives, is criticizing Obama for not making a clear goal with the Libya mission.
France and UK have called for a meeting in London next week to decide the goal of the mission.
|
|
|
Quote
Doos :
Quote
no-name :
Quote
barnabyfox :
I would rather we weren't running anything.
Great Britain has seen more wars in the last 3000 years than I think it needs to have done... I am frightened to actually research just how many wars this nation has been involved in since its humble beginnings.
Fixed :P
Fixed .
Your rich military history is actually the reason I'm studying in Swansea right now.
I was just having a go at our warmongering past. And by 'rich' do you actually mean aggressive? :P
|
|
|
Quote
no-name :
Quote
Doos :
Quote
no-name :
Quote
barnabyfox :
I would rather we weren't running anything.
Great Britain has seen more wars in the last 3000 years than I think it needs to have done... I am frightened to actually research just how many wars this nation has been involved in since its humble beginnings.
Fixed :P
Fixed .
Your rich military history is actually the reason I'm studying in Swansea right now.
I was just having a go at our warmongering past. And by 'rich' do you actually mean aggressive? :P
Little consolation and hardly justifying, but there are many nations with far worse histories than ours...
Believe it or not, but the British Empire was actually one of the lesser violent ones... maybe that's one of the reasons why almost every former colony didn't mind joining the British Commonwealth after and remained a member to this day! No other Empire in history can claim that sort of post Empire success where past colonies remain linked together in friendship and an equal global political framework.
As of 2011, there is currently a que of countries applying to join the Commonwealth, and none of them were even part of the British Empire to start with.. so it clearly still holds much merit.
The only global entity that is larger than The Commonwealth, is the United Nations.
You got some nerve, coming here.
I hate to agree with Barnaby, but the fact is, hes right.
|
|
|
Barnaby, I done a little reading up on our trips to Canada, Australia and New Zealand and, safe to say, the ensuing violence and genocide has put me off the 'glory' of our past Empire.
Let's avoid getting into another discussion about it, shall we? I think it's a shameful part of our history and something no Brit should be proud of. That's my view on it, we'll agree to disagree.
On topic, Misrata has apparently been secured/made safe.
Quote
Nearly 12 hours of allied air strikes have broken the Libyan regime's five-day bloody assault on the key rebel-held town of Misrata.
Residents said the aerial bombardment destroyed tanks and artillery and sent many of Muammar Gaddafi's forces fleeing from Misrata, ending a siege and attack by the regime that cost nearly 100 lives from random shelling, snipers and bitter street fighting.
|
