• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UN and NATO to Gaddafi: Operation Odyssey Dawn |OT|

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gaddafi's son, Khamis Gaddafi is reported dead.
02:13 Almanara Media is confirming from trusted sources that Khamis Al Gaddafi has passed away on Sunday due to severe burn injuries he sustained a few days ago. The burns were caused when a fighter jet pilot performed a martyr mission and crashed his fighter jet into Gaddafi’s compound Baab Al Aziziyah.
Remember this is unconfirmed by CNN/BBC/Al Jazeera at this point, and I'm not quite sure how credible Al Manara Media is.
 

ChiTownBuffalo

Either I made up lies about the Boston Bomber or I fell for someone else's crap. Either way, I have absolutely no credibility and you should never pay any attention to anything I say, no matter what the context. Perm me if I claim to be an insider
Farrakhan and Ghaddafi (Is there a universally accepted spelling of this name?) have been friends and allies for years.

Farrakhan uses the US bombing of Ghaddafi back in the day as an example of America hating Islam. Or true Islamists like himself and Ghadaffi.
 

leroidys

Member
gundamzeta209 said:
Libya is a significant oil-producing nation. Losing an oil producer to instability will wreak havoc on the energy market. With US. debt and USD currency already pushing up oil prices, a disruption caused by a Libyan war could send things over the top.

Like I said.... There was absolutely no involvement in other rebellions of recent years.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Burma



Paul attredes was a nobody to the Universal Empire until he started to Disrupt the Spice Flows. Then the Emperor cared enough to send his Saurdakar warriors to Arakis.


Oh god I'm sorry.

I'm several pages late to this but I didn't see anybody point out that you are blaming the West/U.S. for not stopping casualties by a cyclone. We actually tried to send them humanitarian aid, the vast majority of it was refused. We could not really support the protesters militarily because 1) it was not a military uprising and 2) Burma is deep, deep in China's sphere of influence. No resolution would have passed the security council. If we acted unilaterally we could have very well started world war III, cold war 2.0, whatever.

I can't get past the absurdity of this post. Since an enormous amount of people tragically died in a natural disaster and government crackdown, we should not step in and stop people begging for help from being slaughtered. There is NO logic here. None.

And then you follow it up with a dune (non)parallel

and you have a reagan avatar.

fuuuuuuuuuck
 
leroidys said:
Oh god I'm sorry.

I'm several pages late to this but I didn't see anybody point out that you are blaming the West/U.S. for not stopping casualties by a cyclone. We actually tried to send them humanitarian aid, the vast majority of it was refused. We could not really support the protesters militarily because 1) it was not a military uprising and 2) Burma is deep, deep in China's sphere of influence. No resolution would have passed the security council. If we acted unilaterally we could have very well started world war III, cold war 2.0, whatever.

I can't get past the absurdity of this post. Since an enormous amount of people tragically died in a natural disaster and government crackdown, we should not step in and stop people begging for help from being slaughtered. There is NO logic here. None.

And then you follow it up with a dune (non)parallel

and you have a reagan avatar.

fuuuuuuuuuck

darfur?
 

Fjolle

Member
leroidys said:
What are you responding to exactly? (honest question)
Little is known about the cyclone that has been devastating Darfur for years.

UN have been in Darfur since at least 2004, with humanitarian help
 
leroidys said:
What are you responding to exactly? (honest question)

well he said there was no involvement in other recent rebellions (this isn't true in darfur either), but it wasn't exactly the same response. I understand burma being a different situation but if they can step up to this level of involvement in Libya, there's no reason they shouldn't have in Darfur.
 

cntr

Banned
ConfusingJazz said:
Ok, is there an agreed upon way to spell his name? I see Gaddafi and Gadhafi as the two major ways, and then various other minor ways and misspellings.
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2989
Gadafi, Gadaffi, Gaddafi, Gaddaffi, Gadhafi, Gadhaffi, Ghadafi, Ghadaffi, Ghaddafi, Ghaddaffi, Ghadhafi, Ghadhaffi, Kadafi, Kadaffi, Kaddafi, Kadhafi, Khadafi, Khaddafi, Khaddaffi, Khadhafi, Khadhaffi, Qadafi, Qadaffi, Qaddafi, Qaddaffi, Qadhafi, Qadhaffi, Qadhdhafi, Qathafi, … I give up.

I personally recommend "Gaddafi".
 
Few questions.

1. When the Libyan air defences are neutralised, and Gaddafi forces have retreated (its still not been stated to what extend the distance between them and the rebels, or civilians I don't know what it is now, must be for it not to be construed as aggression) back, then what happens? How long will the NFZ be held?

2. If Gaddafi loses power and attempts are made to form a new government, how will Gaddafi supporters (his tribe) react to it - will they see it as legitimate?

3. Whilst the resolution relates to civilians, clearly some of them are armed hence 'rebels'. If they advance from Benghazi, and try to take Tripoli, the Libyan military will respond, but will this scenario be interpreted as another 'protect the civilians', so in effect the Allies become the Air Force for the rebels? That'd be regime change and I don't think that's legally sound.

Whilst this imposition is directed as a short-term fix, what is it consequences for Libya in the long-term?
 
Thought this was fairly amusing:

There is a joke circulating amongst Tripoli's men: "When Libya is liberated, our brothers in Benghazi will march to the capital with containers of women's underwear to distribute to us."
An old woman, in her late 70s at least, I'm told, entered the bank to collect her 500 Libyan dollars ($410; £253) in state aid announced a couple of weeks ago.

There were two long queues - one for men and one for women. She stood in the men's queue.

The men urged her to move to the women's section. "Why?" she challenged.

A man told her: "Ya haja [a term of respect for an elderly woman] this line is for men, women is the other one".

She loudly replied: "No. All the men are in Benghazi."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12803282
 
Reminds me of this

The men who would not fight

Objectors460.jpg


After reading, in quick succession, four books about the men who fought the war, I took out a box of flimsy, yellowing letters, and tried yet again to imagine what my grandfather went through.

He had three small daughters, which saved him from conscription, and his attempt to volunteer was turned down in 1914 because he was short-sighted. But in 1916, as he walked home to south London from his office, a woman gave him a white feather (an emblem of cowardice). He enlisted the next day. By that time, they cared nothing for short sight. They just wanted a body to stop a shell, which Rifleman James Cutmore duly did in February 1918, dying of his wounds on March 28.

My mother was nine, and never got over it. In her last years, in the 1980s, her once fine brain so crippled by dementia that she could not remember the names of her children, she could still remember his dreadful, useless death. She could still talk of his last leave, when he was so shellshocked he could hardly speak and my grandmother ironed his uniform every day in the vain hope of killing the lice. She treasured his letters from the front, as well as information about his brothers who also died.

She blamed the politicians. She blamed the generation that sent him to war. She was with Kipling: "If any question why we died, / Tell them, because our fathers lied." She was with Sassoon: "If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath / I'd live with scarlet majors at the Base, / And speed glum heroes up the line to death ... And when the war is done and youth stone dead / I'd toddle safely home and die - in bed."

But most of all, she blamed that unknown woman who gave him a white feather, and the thousands of brittle, self-righteous women all over the country who had done the same. And there were thousands of them, as Will Ellsworth-Jones makes clear in his fascinating account of a group of conscientious objectors, We Will Not Fight. After the war, Virginia Woolf suggested there were only 50 or 60 white feathers handed out, but this was nonsense - as Ellsworth-Jones's diligent research shows.

Some of his stories still have the power to make the reader angry. A 15-year-old boy lied about his age to get into the army in 1914. He was in the retreat from Mons, the Battle of the Marne and the first Battle of Ypres, before he caught a fever and was sent home. Walking across Putney Bridge, four girls gave him white feathers. "I explained to them that I had been in the army and been discharged, and I was still only 16. Several people had collected around the girls and there was giggling, and I felt most uncomfortable and ... very humiliated." He walked straight into the nearest recruiting office and rejoined the army.

• Extracted from the Guardian, May 17 2008. The Order of the White Feather, founded in August 1914 by Admiral Charles Fitzgerald, encouraged women to give out white feathers to young men who had not joined the British army.

The plight of objectors: letters from the time

"Jack FG. If you are not in khaki by the 20th I shall cut you dead. Ethel M."
Personal column of the Times, July 8 1915

"I was taken to the Tower of London and locked in a large dungeon where there were 20 or so prisoners. Six were objectors. I was to be taken to Chester Castle and my wife travelled with me. The Cheshire Regiment did not have a good reputation for its treatment of objectors.​
 

Kunan

Member
Thats an ice cold burn, but only when you remove the context of their lives if they do actually sign up for the service.

Meus Renaissance said:
Story of the white flowers
I'm more inclined to agree with this woman's line of thinking.

It's a bit different though in that the woman in question this time is old and therefore not very capable of fighting, but the problem is still the same. I don't agree with sending someone else out to likely die while I, myself, continue my life as it was. You can support an effort, and maybe help out by routing supplies or something, but telling someone else to go fight for you doesn't really jive with me. It's hollow.
 

raphier

Banned
: Nato is ready to support the international coalition intervening in Libya within "a few days," French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe has according to AFP.
Either the OP title is misleading as hell or I am understanding this wrong.
 
mAcOdIn said:
Lol, how is that a burn? She's in line to get money from Gaddafi while scorning the same regime, it's shameless.

I don't blame her for doing so. For her situation, I would like to quote the great Senator Clay Davis: I'll take any mother fuckers money if he giving it away.
 
Psychotext said:
Thought this was fairly amusing:
An old woman, in her late 70s at least, I'm told, entered the bank to collect her 500 Libyan dollars ($410; £253) in state aid announced a couple of weeks ago.

There were two long queues - one for men and one for women. She stood in the men's queue.

The men urged her to move to the women's section. "Why?" she challenged.

A man told her: "Ya haja [a term of respect for an elderly woman] this line is for men, women is the other one".

She loudly replied: "No. All the men are in Benghazi."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12803282
That man's ego took a serious beatdown.
 

subversus

I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
SkyNews said:
Mr Cameron said the strikes had been a success in crippling Colonel Gaddafi's air defences and confirmed that the coalition operation would soon move from US command to Nato-led command.

Speaking to clear up contradictory statements from MPs about whether the UN can remove Colonel Gaddafi from power, the Prime Minister said he believed Libya "needs to get rid of Gaddafi".

But he confirmed that it is up to the Libyan people to choose their ruler

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Da...House_Of_Commons_UN_Averted_Massacre_In_Libya
 

nemesun

Member
mAcOdIn said:
Lol, how is that a burn? She's in line to get money from Gaddafi while scorning the same regime, it's shameless.
I thought what she meant was the guy should've been in Banghazi fighting for Gaddafi!
 
Meus Renaissance said:
Few questions.
I'll try to answer to the best of my knowledge.
1. When the Libyan air defences are neutralised, and Gaddafi forces have retreated (its still not been stated to what extend the distance between them and the rebels, or civilians I don't know what it is now, must be for it not to be construed as aggression) back, then what happens? How long will the NFZ be held?

The situation in Libya is east (Benghazi, Ras Lanuf, Ajdabiya, Brega) vs west (Tripoli, Sirte (Gaddafi's home town)). There is Misrata in the west too that's seen heavy fighting and is said to be in rebel control. And then there are much smaller towns and villages that go back and forth. This is a picture of the peak of rebel success in March 5.
west-coast-map.jpg
east-coast-map.jpg


As you can see, the rebels were able to capture many of the towns without the NFZ in place. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where they will recapture them all, including Tripoli, under the cover of NFZ.

2. If Gaddafi loses power and attempts are made to form a new government, how will Gaddafi supporters (his tribe) react to it - will they see it as legitimate?
If I recall correctly, almost all the major tribes renounced their support for Gaddafi except his own tribe (Gaddaf). The rebels are not going to form the government. There is already an interim government in place called NTC, located in Benghazi. NTC has been recognized as the legitimate government of Libya by France and Sec. Clinton met with NTC's leaders. Here's their website:http://ntclibya.org/english/

3. Whilst the resolution relates to civilians, clearly some of them are armed hence 'rebels'. If they advance from Benghazi, and try to take Tripoli, the Libyan military will respond, but will this scenario be interpreted as another 'protect the civilians', so in effect the Allies become the Air Force for the rebels? That'd be regime change and I don't think that's legally sound.

Whilst this imposition is directed as a short-term fix, what is it consequences for Libya in the long-term?
Most likely, the rebels from Benghazi will try to coordinate a counter-offense with dissidents in surrounding towns. Their plan is currently unclear. But CNN's reporter Arwa Damon talked with Rebel leaders in Benghazi, and the leaders said they will resort to non-violent means of overthrowing Gaddafi if a cease-fire holds. If the cease-fire is broken by Gaddafi's forces, they will resort to armed violence.
 
nemesun said:
I thought what she meant was the guy should've been in Banghazi fighting for Gaddafi!
Nope.
There is a joke circulating amongst Tripoli's men: "When Libya is liberated, our brothers in Benghazi will march to the capital with containers of women's underwear to distribute to us."

They collapse in laughter as they tell the tale and sip on their coffee.

At least one woman in Tripoli has expressed a similar view, but this was no gag, as far as I'm aware. The incident was witnessed by my relative's friend at a bank in the Souk al-Jumaa district.
...
It is perhaps a bittersweet private reminder of how frustrated many here are at the lack of efforts in Tripoli in recent weeks to defy the regime and take to the streets.

However it is also placated by the fact that they did try - twice - and were met with a force so brutal that they conceded it was simply a suicidal task. There is considerable anger brewing behind closed doors here in Tripoli
 

Bishman

Member
RustyNails said:
I'm pretty tired so I'll keep the whole thing short. Tunisian style peaceful pro-democracy movement started in Libya. It lasted for couple of weeks where it grew bigger and bigger each passing day. One fine day, in the city of Benghazi (where the first demonstrations took place), Col. Gaddafi used his military to bomb the peaceful demonstrators. Not police, not thugs, but military (and para-military which was made up of paid foreign mercenaries...the rate was $2000/day). Col. Gaddafi declared war against his own people and started shelling and bombing them left and right. Couple of airforce pilots defected early on, refusing to bomb their fellow citizens. Few other soldiers, infantry and support also defected. The demonstrators now became armed civilians engaging in warfare against their military. This rebel movement had rapid early success and captured almost all of the towns and cities in Libya, but then Gaddafi launched a merciless, scorched earth counter-assault against the rebels, retaking many of the rebel held towns. Gaddafi's army now surrounded Benghazi (second most populous city) and gave 48 hour ultimatum to rebels holed up in there, promising that if they dont surrender, people will be hunted down like rats, door by door, cleansed out, etc. This made international flags going on red alert, as everyone was looking at a planned massacre, or maybe another Rwanda. This provided the impetus for the UNSC to institute No Fly Zone over Libya in order to immediately stop Gaddafi from attacking his own people using jets.
Thanks!
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Bishman said:
I believe the counter-offensive mentioned was also in violation of a cease-fire agreed upon by both sides and recongnized by the UN (hence why the attack worked so well: It was basically a sucker punch), although I'm hung over and working now so I might be recollecting my facts incorrectly, lol.
 
Well I'm thinking if the rebels simply marched on Tripoli as civilians with '"some" machinery as security they could get to Tripoli and protest Gadaffi again. As a civilian march they would not breach a cease fire and Gadaffi would be powerless to stop a civilian march under the UNSC resolution. I think something to that effect would be how the rebels could advance without creating conflict.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom