+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: What action should we take in Libya?

  1. #1
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default What action should we take in Libya?

    Currently Libya has descended into Civil war between Gadaffi's troops and the rebels who would like to see him overthrown. It is likely that without any external assistance Gadaffi will win as he has heavier firepower and more troops to throw at the situation.

    However, most governments would prefer to see him removed from power and a more democratic power put in place in Libya. All sorts of intervention have been mentioned, so the question is how far should we go in assisting the rebels in their goal of overthrowing Gadaffi.

    Should we set up a no-fly zone over the country, should we even consider actual on the ground military intervention or should we do nothing and leave the sovereign state to manage it's own affairs?

    What do you think and does this situation bear any resemblance to Iraq shortly before the Gulf War?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  2. #2
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    The Arab League has apparently asked for help setting up a no fly zone. I think this should happen. It sounds like Eqypt would spear head it with major support from France and the UK and Carrier support from the US. This is something we should do. It should be a case of getting as many Arab countries on board as possible to help out or support it.

    I absolutely do not think NATO forces should enter Libya on the ground.

    I do not think this really resembles Iraq. This is much more sudden. A different goal appears to be in mind by the rebels.

  3. #3
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    I don't think we should take any action on this. Let the EU handle this one if they want to, it's in their backyard. I'm also not convinced that the Russian Anti-Air they have wouldn't be a problem for our fighters, and removing Anti-Air without ground forces might also be problematic.

    Edit; we didn't help the Iraq rebels either, so could be very much the same.
    Last edited by hatesfreedom; 14 Mar 2011 at 02:18 PM.

  4. #4
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by hatesfreedom View post
    I don't think we should take any action on this. Let the EU handle this one if they want to, it's in their backyard. I'm also not convinced that the Russian Anti-Air they have wouldn't be a problem for our fighters, and removing Anti-Air without ground forces might also be problematic.
    You would not offer tactical and surgical support from the on station Carrier at least? It seems like a small thing we can do to support the effort.

  5. #5
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    You would not offer tactical and surgical support from the on station Carrier at least? It seems like a small thing we can do to support the effort.
    Well, I have no issues with providing medical support and some tactical support if the EU is willing to pick up the part of the bill that requires blood. I'd just rather not have the United States get into another stupid war that I feel most Americans aren't going to care about. That and I'm still worried about some of the reported modern military equipment Libya has. Modern Anti-Air is pretty rough, and if they have any Anti-Ship missles it could be just awful. I've never been convinced the Navy would do very well against a large air attack from the shore. Which has pissed some of my Navy friends off to no end.

    Ah well, complicated issue. Do we really need to be saving people?

  6. #6
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    These are the same governments that were kissing his ass a couple of years ago. How many countries are currently dictatorships? Bomb the fuck outta Qadafi but stop doing business with China and every other dictatorship on the planet while yiz are at it oh great western powers.

    Anyway beyond my rantage, would a no-fly zone conclusively tip the balance in the rebels favour, or prolong the civil war but still end up in Qadafi winning? Iraq had no-fly zones during the '90s but Hussein was still in power and a rotten fuck to his people all during that period, although I suppose he wasn't able to persecute the Kurds as much as he had hitherto.

  7. #7
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Well it appears that most world leaders believe the answer to Colonel Gadaffi is to do nothing. As a result, they are likely to get some very nice oil contracts going their way. The chances of any action being taken now are very small and I would guess within a couple of weeks he will have control of the country again.

    All this is likely to show that if a dictator wants to keep power, ruthlessly crushing his opponents is fine by the rest of the world, who will stand by utter platitudes. Expect any other uprisings in the Middle East or Africa to be crushed in a similar fashion and the Western world to stand aside.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  8. #8
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    All this is likely to show that if a dictator wants to keep power, ruthlessly crushing his opponents is fine by the rest of the world, who will stand by utter platitudes. Expect any other uprisings in the Middle East or Africa to be crushed in a similar fashion and the Western world to stand aside.
    But has this not always been the case anyway? It seems that unless a dictator threatens another sovereign state they're rarely interfered with by the international community.
    Economic sanctions sometimes exist but NATO/UN/EU/etc. rarely take more active measures to remove a tyrant.

  9. #9
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    This is not a good development and I think you have it absolutely correct.

  10. #10
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Well it looks like something's happening.

    Military strikes against Libya will take place "swiftly" and France will definitely participate, government spokesman Francois Baroin said in an interview Friday with RTL radio.

    The developments came a day after the U.N. Security Council voted to impose a no-fly zone and as eyewitness reports said the rebel stronghold of Misrata was under attack by government forces.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa...ex.html?hpt=C1

  11. #11
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Looks like Britain and France got a second UN resolution with the US backing and a few abstentions. RAF will be flying out of Cyprus and Italy has opened airfields for French use. Looks like this is more of a NATO operation, than the UN or EU.

    Gadaffi's response was predictable, he will attack anything military or civilian if he can.

    The resolution is everything short of putting feet on the ground, will be interesting to see what effect this does have in the civil war, seeing as it is supposed to be purely protecting civilian's caught up in the war.

    I wonder what finally got Obama off his backside?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  12. #12
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Why blame Obama? While I fully support the US supporting NATO and Arab League efforts, it cannot always be the US leading these actions. I am quite pleased to see the UK and France lead them and only wish members of the Arab League had an even greater role.

    It was China and Russia that seemed to impede this from happening sooner. Not Obama.

  13. #13
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Because whether you like it or not, you are the world's largest superpower and your backing is necessary for any of these actions to take place. Russia and China were never going to get involved, but were also never going to stop action from being taken.

    The EU proved itself a split talking shop again, thanks Germany. The Arab League gave its blessing to action a little while back, but the communication from Washington has been heavy on the prevarication. Until a few days ago, the noise coming out was that the US was quite happy to sit there and let Gadaffi take control again.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  14. #14
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    On a more positive note, Lilbya just declared an immediate ceasefire and stoppage of all military operations.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  15. #15
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Well that was another lie from Colonel Crazy.

    So the joint mission opens with the USA taking a leadership role while knocking out all Libyan air defense. The French at least have already been blowing up tanks. (Last I checked these are not technically air units ) Everything the US is saying seems to indicate once the major air defense targets are gone, we'll be taking a back seat to France and the UK.

    France seems to be saying this is about Regime Change. The UK and US do not seem to be clear about what their missions are. Where are the forces of the Arab league in all of this.

    Also I find it funny that elsewhere people were trying to make it out like the Libyan arm forces were a credible threat to NATO forces. As expected and as I thought was obvious, The US, UK & France are so far ahead of Libya that this Libya will only shoot done jets if they get very lucky.

    Problem, the air assault is not going to unseat Gadaffi*. I absolutely hope no US ground troops go in. I am fine with surgical strikes from air and sea but no land forces this time I hope. This is where the Arab league should really step up with NATO support from air and sea.




    * using CIAS's spelling from the OP as there are a dozen choices.

  16. #16
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Apparently he called another ceasefire the next night as well, when I think he realised what the air strikes meant. Apparently, France fired first as well. From the Arab League, Qatar has sent planes and the UAE may also be involved.

    The movement on Benghazi has stopped dead and is likely in reverse. It will be interesting to see what the troops on the ground do, whether they stay loyal or defect to the rebels.

    The "official" goal is to protect civilians from the ongoing conflict and allow aid to them. I think Gadaffi hiring mercenaries to quell the riots went a little beyond a normal national dispute for power. Ultimately, I think some people in the West would like to see regime change. There is still some confusion as to whether he is an official target or not, but I think that would be a big mistake and would likely turn him into a martyr.

    The UN Resolution says no ground troops, although there are already people looking at the words to try and weasel them one way or another.

    The question is...is it too late to have its intended impact?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  17. #17
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    I imagine it will save some civilian lives but I'm not too sure it'll lead to régime change.

  18. #18
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by The Original An Gadaí View post
    I imagine it will save some civilian lives but I'm not too sure it'll lead to régime change.
    I'm not sure this is actually going to save any civilian lives. If we don't have a clear plan, it seems more likely to end up costing a lot of lives without any benefit.

  19. #19
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Well three days of air strikes appear to have at least halted some of the atrocities going on. With only one plane going down due to mechanical failure, it looks as though control has been siezed.

    The only issue is what is the long term plan and how long are they UN Troops looking to keep the no-fly zone in place for?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  20. #20
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    You can only do so much from the air, which is why I'm very happy France decided to get involved. We give France a lot of shit, as befits our beloved allies, but they do not fuck around. While we'd be debating the morality, or mission goals, they'd be dropping bombs and sending in special forces. Hell, what are the odds there's already some French ground troops mixed in the population in Libya.

    That said I have no idea what the end game of this operation is. I imagine at some point France will let us know.

    and the US may be the worlds super power, but we're broke. We are broke. Nobody wants to say it but we are having a hard time affording all this military shit lifestyle. Don't you talk UK, we know you a broke ass too. Here's a picture of a penis yah cocaine snorting .. uh.. british. 8===>

  21. #21
    PixieBob
    Guest

    Default

    In another thread, I speak of the dreaded Socialist Trouser Weasel. I think that hatesfreedom is one in disguise. It appears to be a ferret, but that is a common ruse.

    The US can't afford to put troops on the ground and I don't like the idea of our young men and women being used for cannon fodder when their sole purpose is supposed to be to defend the US.

    I always have the same answer to stuff like this. We, the taxpayers, (except us cats) have been paying for years to build and maintain both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. I say we use them and just stop putting up with all this violence.

    Other countries will then understand that we won't put up with agression but we won't show any mercy either. So you troublemakers out there better either work out your difficulties on your own or prepair to be green glass.

    All flames gracefully accepted.

  22. #22
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Well, it seems that the rebels and the incumbents have been battling back and forth over the same 200km of land.

    The no-fly zone appears to be holding well and despite stories of civilian casualties, none have been verified by independent sources. Britain appears to have enticed the Libyan foreign minister to defect and it makes you wonder who is next.

    However Obama has decided to send in the CIA, so I guess we are onto a loser here
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  23. #23
    PixieBob
    Guest

    Default

    The CIA??? I had not heard that. Although use of nuclear weapons is not a real option (except in my little cat brain) The CIA would have been a great solution back in the years when the CIA was properly funded and focused on "humint" assets (real spies vs sattelites). Then we would be in a good position to simply assasinate this guy and solve the problem, which is the tidy way to handle it and a way I fully support.

    Today's CIA under "The Musim Obama"...what are they gonna do? Get pictures? I heard that he had some plastic surgery and had a lot of his ass fat moved to his face. Do we really want to spend taxpayer money on getting those pictures?

  24. #24
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    You know I went and asked Obama and he said he's actually not a Muslim but he sometimes thinks women in burqa's are pretty hot. It's the imagination thing.

    I'd be more concerned about the French special forces units that have to be in Libya by now.

  25. #25
    PixieBob
    Guest

    Default

    Why...are they planning to use thier supersecret "Armpit Hair Bomb" on the entire country?

    Or are they planning to defeat the Libian Army by surrendering right in the middle of the country and then allowing their culture of loose morals and great pastry to overcome the enemy by the use of "Kenetic Cultural Attack"

  26. #26
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,174

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by hatesfreedom View post
    You know I went and asked Obama and he said he's actually not a Muslim but he sometimes thinks women in burqa's are pretty hot. It's the imagination thing.
    SCORE.

  27. #27
    PixieBob
    Guest

    Default

    I like women in a burqa too. As a matter of fact, I think all women in America should be required to wear one. This would considerably improve the tone of public entertainment in the area of Diva's, reality tvm news, situation comedies, and in grocery stores.

    *Visualizes Paris Hilton in a Burqa, That woman in "Barely Legal" in a Burqa, Women in Bikini's on "Survivor", Gretta Van Susteren in a Burqua (totally hot), and that woman in front of me in the grocery store who should be arrested for wearing those streach pants.*

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts