Air Operations in Libya Have Begun

Mogi67 said:
Yeah right dude. As if they would admit that an F-15E was shot down? They've never lost one to enemy fire before. Only two things crash a plane, pilot error and mechanical failure.
Click to expand...

Shot over rebel territory?
 
Mogi67 said:
Yeah right dude. As if they would admit that an F-15E was shot down? They've never lost one to enemy fire before. Only two things crash a plane, pilot error and mechanical failure.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that Libya has anything with a remote chance of downing a F-15, at least one that is still in one piece after all those SEAD/DEAD missions.

S-200s, maybe? But those things are neary 40 years old.
 
Raziaar said:
Even if it meant what you thought it meant, and I didn't feel how it means... how do you extrapolate all the crazy shit you said? Because someone who doesn't feel that way automatically supports all those things? No. That's a very far cry.
Click to expand...

Well, for one, I wasn't just replying to you. My post was made after I read yours and Numbers' posts, and was a response to both. Secondly, you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that you'd happily go over there and start raping err'body over there, but that having no sympathy for people could lead down a path to where you dont feel bad for people who supported your enemy, as was the case with the Soviets and Germans. Having no sympathy, not appreciating the pressures that these situations put people in can lead you down a path of ending in hatred. When people say they have no sympathy at all for a group of people, it tends to mean that they'd have no problem with seeing them receive no mercy when doled their punishment and without regard for the specific circumstances. Even if one dealt no harm themselves that mindset enables terrible retribution. The mass rape was allowed because people who could have stopped it had no sympathy for the Nazi supporters and would at best turn away from it. I know you well enough to know that you didn't mean it in that way, but thats the sort of vibe I got from you and Numbers, if only because other people usually do mean it that way. I extrapolated all the crazy shit I said by following the path I mentioned, which I believe is initiated by lacking any sympathy for your enemy.


@Numbers, I generally do consider sympathy a synonym with empathy. In this context especially.
 
I'm basically saying that people who feel no sympathy aren't set in stone and it doesn't necessarily mean they're willing to exercise a no mercy mentality. Sympathy or empathy or whatever you want to call it, can be a completely dynamic thing and all depends on the scenarios.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html
Germany pulls forces out. Libyan Coalition falls apart

  • Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
  • French propose a new political 'committee' to oversee operations
  • Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign's direction
  • Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
  • No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine
  • U.K. ministers say war could last '30 years'
  • Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
  • Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a 'crusade'



The Monkey said:
If China really gave a shit they would've vetoed the resolution.
Click to expand...
Not if they wanted tension to escalate.
 
Raziaar said:
I'm basically saying that people who feel no sympathy aren't set in stone and it doesn't necessarily mean they're willing to exercise a no mercy mentality. Sympathy or empathy or whatever you want to call it, can be a completely dynamic thing and all depends on the scenarios.
Click to expand...

So after this is all over, when Gadaffi's dead/exiled/arrested would you have sympathy for an ex-supporter of his?

@Mogi

  • Daily Mail

I don't see that being reported anywhere reputable, and I thought Germany had no forces "in," thus making it rather unlikely that they withdrew them.
 
Krynn72 said:
So after this is all over, when Gadaffi's dead/exiled/arrested would you have sympathy for an ex-supporter of his?

@Mogi

  • Daily Mail

I don't see that being reported anywhere reputable, and I thought Germany had no forces "in," thus making it rather unlikely that they withdrew them.
Click to expand...

I would have empathy for them if they're not continuing the fight after Gadaffi is dead, and especially if after they stop the fight they get persecuted violently.
 
The Monkey said:
How on earth is this about "oil"? Gaddafi always supplied oil to the west, how the hell is removing him gonna be in the interest of "oil"? If anything, the power vacuum that could very well follow after he's gone might threaten the oil exports, so I'd say that the West in this case is working against the interests of "oil". And what the hell does he mean, anyway? To steal their oil, to raise the oil price (to increase the tax income or whatever), to lower the oil price? People who talk about "oil" very rarely clarify exactly what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

Well it could be suggested that France's decision to recognise the rebel council as the legitimate government of Libya, followed by the rebs getting thier asses handed to them could have jeopardised oil sales to the west (and particularly France. The UK was also vocal in saying that the Colonel "must go now") if Gadaffi stayed in power - he would likley have been rather upset about the whole thing. Thus when the rebels started losing those states which had prematurely jumped into bed with them felt that to secure future acess to libyan oil bailing the rebels out was a necessity.

Of course thats just speculation.

I highly doubt that Libya has anything with a remote chance of downing a F-15, at least one that is still in one piece after all those SEAD/DEAD missions.
Click to expand...

Thats what they thought about the Yugoslav army back in '99 during air operations over Kosovo - after an F-117, F-16 and 30 UAVs were downed they wern't so confident.

I don't believe that that this particular F-15 was downed by enemy fire, but thinking that the Libyan military poses no threat to allied aircraft is arrogance of the highest order.
 
I don't understand a lot of the opposition to this intervention. In the UK the Stop the War coalition and the CND have come out heavily against it. On the less reputable side (and not to suggest any connection), the vile Kelvin MacKenzie, responsible for Gotcha, has been pushing a confused "don't risk our boys" line on BBC's Question Time, and of course there is the routine bro-historical sabre-rattling about crusades and colonialism from usual suspects like Vladimir "let's flatten Chechen cities in reprisal for combat casualties" Putin.

Comparisons to Iraq are inevitable but they don't hold up. This time, western forces have a much more limited mission: stop civilian casualties. This time, they appear to be fulfilling a genuinely humanitarian purpose. This time, they have a UN mandate. No, I don't think it's right that we're suddenly bombing this particular war criminal and giving aid and money to a bunch of others all over the world, and by and large the countries performing the task remain exploitative scourges on the face of the earth and the liberty of its people - but this is better than the alternative, which, before the weekend, was Gaddafi slaughtering the people of Benghazi.

It's right to be cautious, though. International bickering, power-plays and Cameron's thuggish posturing about 'assassination' threaten in the direction of mission creep or big mistakes. The reaction and attitude of the Arab world - a crucial dimension - remains balanced on a knife-edge. The combination of western powers not usually known for taking excessive care against collateral damage and a wily dictator who seems very willing to put his citizens in harm's way offers the sobering possibility that an unacceptable number of the intervention's victims will be civilians. Moreover, Gaddafi's deceptive antics only heighten tensions (state television is supposedly showing as 'civilian casualties' bodies of people who were 'disappeared' before the protests turned into a civil war). And if troops go in on the ground things may get extremely messy.

But currently the situation is so opaque and unpredictable that scaremongering about any of these possibilities is pointless and unfair. There's no reason yet to believe we'll end up sending people home from this in boxes. All the western powers and any Arab ones that join them can do is be as scrupulous as possible in the application of the mandate they have been given. This 'war' began as a revolution that provoked a merciless military response from an autocratic and illegitimate regime; that revolution began as a peaceful uprising that was fired upon by the hired men of that regime's leader. If ever there was a moment or a justification for the first world to wield its military power - carefully, considering all possibilities, taking all possible safeguards, answering for every mistake and transgression, examined independently at every turn - it is now. Our governments and their forces may yet debase the cause they are fighting for, but its origin is just.
 
Bob_Marley said:
Well it could be suggested that France's decision to recognise the rebel council as the legitimate government of Libya, followed by the rebs getting thier asses handed to them could have jeopardised oil sales to the west (and particularly France. The UK was also vocal in saying that the Colonel "must go now") if Gadaffi stayed in power - he would likley have been rather upset about the whole thing. Thus when the rebels started losing those states which had prematurely jumped into bed with them felt that to secure future acess to libyan oil bailing the rebels out was a necessity.

Of course thats just speculation.
Click to expand...
You got a point.
 
Sulkdodds said:
... there is the routine bro-historical sabre-rattling about crusades and colonialism from usual suspects like Vladimir "let's flatten Chechen cities in reprisal for combat casualties" Putin.
Click to expand...

I thought it was interesting how Putin's lapdog Medvedev actually spoke out against him. Putin has since claimed that there was no split over Libya and that himself and Medvedev are close.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12810566
 
Yeah Minister when I saw that bit of news yesterday I had to reread it like 3 times to make sure I was understanding it correctly, that Medvedev actually was disagreeing publicly with Putin.

I pretty much agree with Sulkdodds about this whole thing. I lol'd at "bro-historical sabre-rattling".
 
Sulkdodds said:
This time, western forces have a much more limited mission: stop civilian casualties. This time, they appear to be fulfilling a genuinely humanitarian purpose. This time, they have a UN mandate. No, I don't think it's right that we're suddenly bombing this particular war criminal and giving aid and money to a bunch of others all over the world, and by and large the countries performing the task remain exploitative scourges on the face of the earth and the liberty of its people - but this is better than the alternative, which, before the weekend, was Gaddafi slaughtering the people of Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Of course the real test of the "stop civilian casulaities" area will come if and when the rebels launch a counter offensive against government held cities. Will the enforcers of the resolution start bombing rebel heavy weapons when they're firing on heavily populated civilian areas?

a wily dictator who seems very willing to put his citizens in harm's way
Click to expand...

Willy, like, oh the rebels? You know, those nice chaps who fled to civilian population centres as soon as the tide turned against them and used thier own people not only as human shields but also as bargaining chips to gain outside support?
 
Bob_Marley said:
Of course the real test of the "stop civilian casulaities" area will come if and when the rebels launch a counter offensive against government held cities. Will the enforcers of the resolution start bombing rebel heavy weapons when they're firing on heavily populated civilian areas?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that would be a very difficult issue if/when it arose.

Bob Marley said:
Willy, like, oh the rebels? You know, those nice chaps who fled to civilian population centres as soon as the tide turned against them and used thier own people not only as human shields but also as bargaining chips to gain outside support?
Click to expand...
Any distinction drawn between a given group and "their own" people is problematic, but this one is particularly so because the group under discussion is a disparate alliance of lightly armed amateur civilians with defected army groups. It seems unfair to expect disorganised combatants who have in many cases emerged independently from the crowd and picked up a gun to then, under the whistle of shells, decide that they are no longer "their own people" but must instead retreat into the desert. Obviously the character of the uprising makes it difficult for Gaddafi's forces to distinguish between unarmed 'innocents' and armed opposition fighters, but a recent history of bombing protesters, surrounding hospitals with snipers and sending gangs round neighbourhoods to terrorise dissenters betrays no effort to do so. It's also worth noting that for a long time back there rebel spokespeople tended to reject the idea of foreign intervention until Gaddafi set the army on them.

So I'm not sure what your basis is for suggesting a deliberate and avoidable policy of human shielding (?) on behalf of the rebels - rather than a mixture of disorganised fighters retreating before assault and non-fighters not wishing to leave their homes (though many already have - they aren't been confined there). Suggest that and the question will remain: does more agency/blame lie with those who order strikes on civilian areas or those who retreat into them? Was it 'okay' in Lebanon for Israel to bomb indiscriminately simply because Hezbollah fired from cover?

But this is all moot. It doesn't really affect the case for intervention. The "wily dictator" commend assessed the possibility that western military force as currently employed might recklessly or accidentally collude with Gaddafi's fairly solid record of deception. It did not actually propose that the UN should intervene because Gaddafi uses human shields, if he does (as has been reported). Nor did it express anything like "the rebels are better than him so we should help them." It certainly would provide a new argument against intervention if the rebels started shelling hospitals from the safety of a football field packed with wailing children.
 
The rebels have once again gotten their asses handed to them by the pro gaddafi forces. Providing arms to them ?
 
US (Hillary Clinton) paves way to arm Libyan rebels

Clinton tells London conference that UN security council resolution 1973 over-rode absolute prohibition of arms to Libya

Nicholas Watt , chief political correspondent | Tuesday March 29 2011 19.26 BST

Hillary Clinton has paved the way for the United States to arm the Libyan rebels by declaring that the recent UN security council resolution relaxed an arms embargo on the country.

As Libya's opposition leaders called for the international community to arm them, the secretary of state indicated that the US was considering whether to meet their demands when she talked of a "work in progress".

The US indicated on Monday night that it had not ruled out arming the rebels, though it was assumed this would take some time because of a UN arms embargo which applies to all sides in Libya.

But Clinton made clear that UN security council resolution 1973, which allowed military strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's regime, relaxed the embargo. Speaking after the conference on Libya in London, Clinton said: "It is our interpretation that 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time."
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels

What could possibly go wrong with that? Maybe if Charlie Wilson was still alive he would have some thoughts on that.
 
I don't like the idea of providing arms to them.
 
to be fair, the rebels have begun replacing the youth militia with professional soldiers, and having success to a degree.
 
I really don't care anymore who's in charge over there as long as they're business friendly with the US and our interests.
 
Even if they're a brutal dictator who is business friendly with the US?
 
A libertarian showing selfishness and a complete disregard for strangers? Shocking.
 
Raziaar said:
Even if they're a brutal dictator who is business friendly with the US?
Click to expand...
I mean I wouldn't be like "yeah this guy is great" but frankly, just being honest, I don't really have a huge concern. It's not high on my list.

I used to feel different, and would in the past have supported us using our military to remove a person like that. But we don't have the resources to do that for every tyrant on the globe, so what makes one more worthy of removal than another by us.

So yeah, the rebels have my vocal support. But that's about it. I think it's great they do it themselves as they should. But I don't support us pouring military resources/money into the area. Bring our troops home from the 3 active campaigns. The missions are complete.


I also think it's funny that some of you calling me selfish and sickening for not supporting the US bombardment of Libya were deadset against the Iraq war yourself. I explain my previous support of the Iraq campaign in that I used to feel we had a duty to police the world of jackoffs like that. 8 years of policing later and a huge deficit I think very differently, and can explain the differences in my beliefs today. Can you explain why we should be in Libya but not Iraq?
 
You said nothing about military intervention, only about "not caring" who was in charge.

Anyway it's an entirely different situation. On one hand you have a multinational effort to assist an existing rebellion against a brutal dictator which has grassroots support and on the other you have foreign powers instituting regime change for reasons which are never entirely clear - at least, not the genuine reasons. The scale of involvement is also radically different between the two theatres.
I think it's either quite disingenuous or very ignorant to try and portray them as equivalent.
 
Eejit said:
You said nothing about military intervention, only about "not caring" who was in charge.

Anyway it's an entirely different situation. On one hand you have a multinational effort to assist an existing rebellion against a brutal dictator which has grassroots support and on the other you have foreign powers instituting regime change for reasons which are never entirely clear - at least, not the genuine reasons. The scale of involvement is also radically different between the two theatres.
I think it's either quite disingenuous or very ignorant to try and portray them as equivalent.
Click to expand...

Not caring is the same as doing nothing. Saying "oh thats terrible" but not wanting to deploy military or financial assistance is the same as not caring on a global scale. Sorry for not being clear. I don't think we should be deploying a single penny or bomb for this.

And Iraq had a huge multinational coalition. To support one and not the other without explanation is strange. I previously supported one and now don't, but I've explained my rationale for doing so- we don't have the means to be the globe's savior as I once believed.
 
How nice of you to ignore all but one of my points. I explained why it isn't inconsistent to support the Libyan actions and not the invasion of Iraq.
Besides, a coalition of countries who had governments wanting to suck up to the US/were feeling rather hawkish at the time isn't quite the same as NATO.
 
The rebels' victory isn't as clear as it seemed yesterday. The regime's forces still control big areas of the city. And one of Gaddafi's sons who the rebels claimed to have caught were seen on free foot today. The situation is pretty confused atm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Vaapukka
New years etc.
Replies
2
Views
925
Shem
Shem
MuToiD_MaN
Seems we'll have new Half-Life game. What's some life events you've had since Orange Box in 2007?
Replies
24
Views
3K
Shem
Shem
Lizardizzle
2019: The year of Half-Life SFX videos
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ennui
Ennui
Tollbooth Willie
To Those That Stand, Those That Fell
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top