Support NeoGAF

[Psychotext]

#BREAKING ABC's Martha Raddatz:#Gadhafi sends up first warplane violating no fly zone -- plane is shot down by French fighter jets."

Utterly retarded. They might as well have shot the pilot on the tarmac.

 

[raphier]

Utterly retarded. They might as well have shot the pilot on the tarmac.

Something's not right. he wouldn't send one aircraft, wouldn't he? I think it was a refugee of some sort.

 

[JayDubya]

They hypocritically attack Obama for either not acting quickly enough... or acting at all

Why does one have to choose? Can't it be both?

I remain unconvinced our intervention was necessary or appropriate, and I don't see a declaration of war from both houses of Congress.

It's ALSO tactically stupid to have waited this long if we're going to have done anything.

As per usual, he splits the difference to find the worst of all possible worlds. It's an amazing talent.

 

[fastford58]

Utterly retarded. They might as well have shot the pilot on the tarmac.

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Mael]

Why does one have to choose? Can't it be both?

I remain unconvinced our intervention was necessary or appropriate, and I don't see a declaration of war from both houses of Congress.

It's ALSO tactically stupid to have waited this long if we're going to have done anything.

As per usual, he splits the difference to find the worst of all possible worlds. It's an amazing talent.

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

US =/= UN
and US =/= NATO

Not sure what you mean by this.

Sending someone in a plane in a nofly zone == killing your pilot and destroying your plane

 

[JayDubya]

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

US =/= UN
and US =/= NATO

That's cute.

Per usual, we're running the show, we're putting forth the majority of the effort, and we're footing the bill.

Obama said we'd be passing the baton in a matter of "days, not weeks." In the meantime we're blowing in the hundreds of millions of dollars each of said days.

 

[Mael]

That's cute.

Per usual, we're running the show, we're putting forth the majority of the effort, and we're footing the bill.

Obama said we'd be passing the baton in a matter of "days, not weeks." In the meantime we're blowing in the hundreds of millions of dollars each of said days.

What's even more cute is that you think he was alone in making the call for the UN resolution while everyone was idling around counting flowers in New York.

 

[Zenith]

Obama said we'd be passing the baton in a matter of "days, not weeks." In the meantime we're blowing in the hundreds of millions of dollars each of said days.

Demonstrating the central Libertarian tenant that money > lives.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Not sure what you mean by this.

He means it was so inevitable that he would be shot down that they might as well have just killed the pilot themselves and saved themselves a plane.

 

[Walshicus]

Per usual, we're running the show, we're putting forth the majority of the effort, and we're footing the bill.

You are??

 

[Psychotext]

Not sure what you mean by this.

What Mael and radioheadrule83 said.

I'd wager the reason Gaddafi did it is because Hauge (UK) said "There are no Libyan military aircraft flying".

 

[Mael]

You are??

You didn't see him in the latest UN meeting? there was only him and Obama and he was wondering why there was no one around this part, the janitor then came and said everybody quitted and put up a Broadway musical.

 

[Wes]

That's cute.

Per usual, we're running the show, we're putting forth the majority of the effort, and we're footing the bill.

Obama said we'd be passing the baton in a matter of "days, not weeks." In the meantime we're blowing in the hundreds of millions of dollars each of said days.

The reason why the US is running the show at the moment is because there are very few nations in the world who could rapidly mobilize and enforce the UN resolution quick enough to stop a potential massacre in Benghazi, the rebel stronghold.

If the international community had waited Benghazi would've fallen. Now that Benghazi is safe from immediate destruction the pass over can happen.

I don't see whats so hard to see about that.

 

[Azih]

As per usual, he splits the difference to find the worst of all possible worlds. It's an amazing talent.

So to keep from being seen as a Bush like cowboy Obama needed an international consensus, and he let France and Britain do all of the heavy lifting in getting that. That of course takes *time*.. Obama has so far fulfilled the objective of preventing a Gaddafi massacre of civilians while keeping the US as far out of the spotlight as possible.

 

[Mael]

Dude needed an international consensus, and he let France and Britain do all of the heavy lifting in getting that. That of course takes *time*.. Obama has so far fulfilled the objective of preventing a Gaddafi massacre of civilians while keeping the US as far out of the spotlight as possible.

yeah but who cares about the lives of people, what's important is how does it affect the contracts we have there, man.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

What Mael and radioheadrule83 said.

I'd wager the reason Gaddafi did it is because Hauge (UK) said "There are no Libyan military aircraft flying".

...and there still aren't.

I'd hope the pilot survived, as there's nothing more saddening than pointless waste of life - and sending a pilot up in outdated tech into a no-fly zone secured by current-gen combat aircraft is just that.

 

[JayDubya]

The reason why the US is running the show at the moment is because there are very few nations in the world who could rapidly mobilize and enforce the UN resolution quick enough to stop a potential massacre in Benghazi, the rebel stronghold.

That in and of itself is disconcerting, given the relative proximity.

If the international community had waited Benghazi would've fallen. Now that Benghazi is safe from immediate destruction the pass over can happen.

I respect that you mean that in good faith, but "what's so hard about that," to me anyway, is that I don't see how you don't parse any of that reply as "once the crisis and the heavy lifting are over..."

 

[Slurpy2k20]

Why does one have to choose? Can't it be both?

I remain unconvinced our intervention was necessary or appropriate, and I don't see a declaration of war from both houses of Congress.

It's ALSO tactically stupid to have waited this long if we're going to have done anything.

As per usual, he splits the difference to find the worst of all possible worlds. It's an amazing talent.

What the fuck does 'necessary', or 'appropriate' constitute to you? By all indications there would have been an imminent massacre. No skin off your back, of course.

Tactically stupid to wait that long? The mandate of the resolution, and the justification, was to prevent mass killings. Did you want the US to randomly jump in to help the rebels when they were on the offensive? Why the hell would they? The Tunisian and Egyptian gvts fell without any intervention, I'm sure everyone was hoping the same would happen with Libya. But it didn't. Benghazi was being seiged, and Gaddafi publicly exclaiming they were planning to 'cleanse the city, door to door'. What the fuck does that mean to you?
Your hypocrisy is also telling, stating in the same breath that the US took too long, and also that you wanted approval from both houses of congress.. something at would have taken weeks if not more.

As I recall, you were a proponent of the Iraq war- which by any definition was neither necessary nor appropriate, waged under lies and manipulation. This intervention was not initiated by the US, is UN backed, and is as close to a 'just' intervention that I can find in recent US history. Also, no boots on the ground is significant.

 

[JayDubya]

Your hypocrisy is also telling, stating in the same breath that the US took too long, and also that you wanted approval from both houses of congress.. something at would have taken weeks if not more.

It's not hypocrisy. You quoted it pal, now read it: "Why can't it be both?"

I don't approve of it. I don't approve of lobbing cruise missiles at nations we're not at war with (and don't pose a threat to us), and I don't approve of bypassing the declaration of war stage of things if we are going to do that.

That is the prevailing value. I made that clear. But we do a lot of things I don't approve of. If we're going to do them anyway, perhaps we should at least not do them poorly, and saying that is not a contradiction.

Furthering a stalemate by reducing Gaddafi's ability to deliver the finishing blow once the rebels are essentially screwed is objectively worse than ensuring rebel victory / regime change by intervening earlier.

 

[Aurora]

Gaddafi sending a single warplane truly baffles me. No idea what he was hoping to achieve there.

 

[JayDubya]

Gaddafi sending a single warplane truly baffles me. No idea what he was hoping to achieve there.

Dipping a toe in the water, as it were.

Yup, it's too cold.

 

[Wazzim]

Can we talk about saudis wazzim and how 'people' look towards you?

Sure why not lol. I'm not from Saudi-Arabia btw, don't know how you came up with that.

Dipping a toe in the water, as it were.

Yup, it's too cold.

lol

 

[Wes]

I respect that you mean that in good faith, but "what's so hard about that," to me anyway, is that I don't see how you don't parse any of that reply as "once the crisis and the heavy lifting are over..."

I see where you're coming from. The most strenuous part of inforcing the resolution has already been accomplished with the crippling of the regime's Air Power, Anti-Air sites, communications, supply lines to the front line in the East and actual armour.

The problem now is not with the US but with NATO. France want it to be a Anglo-French run operation. The UK are completely against that and demand NATO's inclusion, as does the US. Italy are threatening to withdraw use of their air bases. Turkey don't want any part of it...

My understanding is that as soon as NATO give the go ahead the US are ready and willing to handover (although it should be noted that this could still mean a US commander in charge of the operation). Similiar to what cased the UN a long time to act, it's taking the same amount of time for NATO. This is hardly the fault of the United States.

And who knows how long this resolution will be in effect. If, for sake of an example, it's in place for 18 months, a fortnight at the beginning of the campaign when the US played the major role will seem like a much "fairer" share of the burden than appraising the relative contributions made right now.

 

[Wes]

Some more info on the shot aircraft.

The incident happened near the besieged western city of Misrata, reports said.

One US official quoted by Associated Press news agency said the Libyan plane shot down by France was a G-2/Galeb, a training aircraft with a single engine. The French plane involved was a Rafale fighter, the same US official said.

The US official said the Libyan plane may have been landing at the time of the attack.

 

[JayDubya]

A training aircraft...

"Dipping the toe," indeed.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

Well at least if you wait until it's about to land before shooting it down, you know it wasn't someone trying to flee.

 

[Wes]

A French warplane fired an air-to-ground missile at a Libyan military plane and destroyed it just after it landed at Misrata air force base, a French armed forces spokesman said on Thursday. "The French patrol carried out an air-to-ground strike with an AASM weapon just after the plane had landed at the Misrata airbase," the spokesman said, adding that the plane, belonging to Muammar Gaddafi's military, had breached the UN-imposed no-fly zone.

Some more clarity.

 

[Bregor]

So lets say, that the US does hand things entirely over to the UK / France soon. If hypothetically the Rebels are defeated by Gadaffi, then what will be the view of the US role in events?

 

[Mael]

So lets say, that the US does hand things entirely over to the UK / France soon. If hypothetically the Rebels are defeated by Gadaffi, then what will be the view of the US role in events?

Whatever happens it's still going to be the US fault, don't you see?

 

[Gaborn]

So lets say, that the US does hand things entirely over to the UK / France soon. If hypothetically the Rebels are defeated by Gadaffi, then what will be the view of the US role in events?

That we should never have been involved in the first place? I see nothing that we have done that France or any other first world country could not have done, why ARE we doing this right now? What is taking multiple days that the coalition of all these European countries (and supposedly at some undetermined date Arab countries have pledged involvement too!) could not have done without our help?

 

[Wes]

So lets say, that the US does hand things entirely over to the UK / France soon. If hypothetically the Rebels are defeated by Gadaffi, then what will be the view of the US role in events?

Probably criticised by some for not doing all they could to get rid of Gadaffi.

The more reasonable will understand that they were doing all they could within the scope of the UN resolution and international law. Anything further would've come with strong condemnation by the Arab League and who knows what that could've led to.

Although that's not the best hypohetical to ponder about. Gadaffi can't defeat the rebels now. He doesn't have the military strength. His best bet is to prolong this for as long as possible, hopefully weakening the international support for the operation, and eventually lifting the UN sanction and no-fly zone over him.

The best possible exit scenario is of course Gaddafi surrendering but considering what I've just stated above he's unlikely to do this until the rebels have surrounded Tripoli. At the moment the Rebels aren't organised enough to do this, although they have the numbers.

 

[kitch9]

That in and of itself is disconcerting, given the relative proximity.



I respect that you mean that in good faith, but "what's so hard about that," to me anyway, is that I don't see how you don't parse any of that reply as "once the crisis and the heavy lifting are over..."

Proximity to what?

You're already fight a few wars over there, its not like they had to move the gear far.

 

[[Nintex]]

That we should never have been involved in the first place? I see nothing that we have done that France or any other first world country could not have done,

Fire 122 Tomahawk missles, we Europeans couldn't have done that.

Maybe the US figured that by offering their help the Europeans might help 'fix' Iraq or Iran when the time comes.

 

[Wes]

That we should never have been involved in the first place? I see nothing that we have done that France or any other first world country could not have done, why ARE we doing this right now? What is taking multiple days that the coalition of all these European countries (and supposedly at some undetermined date Arab countries have pledged involvement too!) could not have done without our help?

An Anglo-French initial action would unlikely have been enough to destroy air defences, protect Benghazi and secure a no-fly zone on their own. I believe it was US Harriers that were the ones that destroyed the armoured column that was advancing on Benghazi the first night of the intervention.

Sure they could have done it eventually but not in the time between the UN resolution being passed and Gaddaffi's forces reaching the Rebel stronghold city.

The problem right now is that NATO are finely crafting who's in charge of what and of course with any large international organisation with differing views it's taking too long. Even the French and the British have different views on how to enforce the resolution. Throw Italy, Germany, Greece, Turkey into the mix...

 

[Gaborn]

Fire 122 Tomahawk missles, we Europeans couldn't have done that.

Between our entire coalition you guys don't have 122 Tomahawk missiles? I find that hard to believe. And even if that WAS accurate that doesn't mean you don't have 122 other missiles you would be capable of firing.

Wes - the UK doesn't have Harriers? You do know they're a British aircraft, right?

Edit: I take that back. Britain retired their harriers in 2010. Spain and Italy do have them though!

 

[Roude Leiw]

Between our entire coalition you guys don't have 122 Tomahawk missiles? I find that hard to believe. And even if that WAS accurate that doesn't mean you don't have 122 other missiles you would be capable of firing.

Wes - the UK doesn't have Harriers? You do know they're a British aircraft, right?

they dont have them anymore. defense cuts.

 

[[Nintex]]

The problem right now is that NATO are finely crafting who's in charge of what and of course with any large international organisation with differing views it's taking too long. Even the French and the British have different views on how to enforce the resolution. Throw Italy, Germany, Greece, Turkey into the mix...

I also think that the US/EU and friends expected Gadaffi to give up when the bombings started. We get Hillary and European media speculating all the time that Gadaffi is gone soon and then he appears on state TV with some speech handing out guns. This guy is heading to civil war and while the two groups will go at it with axes, NATO circles above not knowing what the hell to do.

The rebels haven't lost any ground but they aren't gaining anything either.

 

[Advance_Alarm]

something tells me it would take a bit more than that. I thought GAF wanted to actually, you know, cut the US defense department though. Frankly I'm just very very saddened by how many GAFers are just accepting all of this, especially with no clear plan for an exit strategy. Isn't that one of the reasons the Iraq war was so unfortunate?

oh please. don't confuse GAF with your personal army of bob barr supporting whackjobs. You hit all of the talking points, comparison to the iraq war, crying about defense spending. How are you "saddened" that the US is saving lives and spreading democracy? In 30 years when Libya, Egypt and Tunisia are North African utopias that allow gay marriages while America reverts to 'lul im libertarian free market didnt let gays have rights' mentality you'll be eating crow. I think that when Americans see people with wildly different cultures and religions coming together to make a new country abroad they might realize how stupid all these things that keep us apart really are.

 

[Wes]

Wes - the UK doesn't have Harriers? You do know they're a British aircraft, right?

Oh Gaborn old pal, of course I know that. I mean between us and the French we wouldn't have had been able to mobilize enough aircraft to do all the things I listed in that one night.

I could've said "US aircraft" took out the armour, I just spruced it up a bit with some further information.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

That we should never have been involved in the first place? I see nothing that we have done that France or any other first world country could not have done, why ARE we doing this right now? What is taking multiple days that the coalition of all these European countries (and supposedly at some undetermined date Arab countries have pledged involvement too!) could not have done without our help?

The Americans by FAR have the largest military in the world in terms of defense spending you dwarf all other nations in which case when you need a whole bunch of firepower aimed in one particular direction America is (likely) the only nation capable of delivering so much in such a small amount of time.

As for the criticism of the US administration;

Reasons to have waited as long as they did -

1. See how far the rebels get rushing into the situation before it was determined that they would be soundly defeated is not a good idea.

2. Build up some sort of international concensus

3. To have rushed in would have meant political suicide

4. What excuse would you give for intervening, right now its to prevent a slaughter of people


I just don't see how going in quick would have worked.

 

[Gaborn]

oh please. don't confuse GAF with your personal army of bob barr supporting whackjobs.

I am aware that YOU do not want to cut the military. I distinctly remember a rather large number of GAFers however agreeing with me that the defense department needs deep cuts.

You hit all of the talking points, comparison to the iraq war, crying about defense spending. How are you "saddened" that the US is saving lives and spreading democracy?

Are you that delusional? The US "spread Democracy" in Korea too and they're still waiting for Kim Jong Il to decide to annihilate Seoul. The US "spread Democracy" in Vietnam too and tens of thousands of deaths later we STILL lost. The US "spread Democracy" in Iraq and we lost thousands of troops and killed thousands of civilians. Historically our attempts of spreading democracy have LEAD to our poor perception over seas. The world doesn't want us poking around everywhere overseas.

In 30 years when Libya, Egypt and Tunisia are North African utopias that allow gay marriages while America reverts to 'lul im libertarian free market didnt let gays have rights' mentality you'll be eating crow. I think that when Americans see people with wildly different cultures and religions coming together to make a new country abroad they might realize how stupid all these things that keep us apart really are.

1. Just sad that you're that far out of touch.

2. Even if you were somehow right about Libya (which seems EXTREMELY unlikely) what exactly do you think the US did in Egypt or Tunisia?

The Americans by FAR have the largest military in the world in terms of defense spending you dwarf all other nations in which case when you need a whole bunch of firepower aimed in one particular direction America is (likely) the only nation capable of delivering so much in such a small amount of time.

The fact that we have a large military does not mean Britain and France and all the others (much less all the others COMBINED) cannot take on a tinpot dictator like Gaddafi at any time they would have needed to. Seriously, the US military is ENORMOUS compared to all the other countries but the British and French and all the other militaries are larger, better trained, and better equipped by many orders of magnitude than anything that Gaddafi can muster.

As for the criticism of the US administration;

Reasons to have waited as long as they did -

Are people really criticizing the US for WAITING?

1. See how far the rebels get rushing into the situation before it was determined that they would be soundly defeated is not a good idea.

All we're doing is creating a stale mate for them. Presumably if we had not intervened they would have lost already, there is no guarantee they will win with our air support.

2. Build up some sort of international concensus

We did that, although the Arabs as far as I've heard have not committed any pilots or air support yet.

3. To have rushed in would have meant political suicide

as opposed to the current situation where they're being roundly criticized in congress by everyone.

4. What excuse would you give for intervening, right now its to prevent a slaughter of people


I just don't see how going in quick would have worked.

THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERVENE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY LIKE THIS.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

On another note, I have my doubts that even with the air support the rebels will come out victorious. Gaddaffi still has supporters and the rebels have never looked like a capable force. So heres hoping they eject him from the building but I am not holding my breadth.

This reuters slide show has some interesting pics, tho.

http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slideshow?articleId=USRTR2IZEW#a=1

 

[GaimeGuy]

Between our entire coalition you guys don't have 122 Tomahawk missiles? I find that hard to believe. And even if that WAS accurate that doesn't mean you don't have 122 other missiles you would be capable of firing.

Wes - the UK doesn't have Harriers? You do know they're a British aircraft, right?

Edit: I take that back. Britain retired their harriers in 2010. Spain and Italy do have them though!

The only two military forces that have Tomahawk technology are the Royal and US Navies.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

Are you that delusional? The US "spread Democracy" in Korea too and they're still waiting for Kim Jong Il to decide to annihilate Seoul. The US "spread Democracy" in Vietnam too and tens of thousands of deaths later we STILL lost. The US "spread Democracy" in Iraq and we lost thousands of troops and killed thousands of civilians. Historically our attempts of spreading democracy have LEAD to our poor perception over seas. The world doesn't want us poking around everywhere overseas.

Well technically was the war not about halting the spread of communism in south east Asia, in which case yeah you lost the battle for Vietnam but not so much the war.

 

[Gaborn]

Well technically was the war not about halting the spread of communism in south east Asia, in which case yeah you lost the battle for Vietnam but not so much the war.

What? Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar all became communist after our loss in Vietnam. Only Cambodia, in 1993 went back to a monarchy but the others are all communist today, exactly the US's fear and reason for going into Vietnam.

 

[GaimeGuy]

What? Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar all became communist after our loss in Vietnam. Only Cambodia, in 1993 went back to a monarchy but the others are all communist today, exactly the US's fear and reason for going into Vietnam.

haha, no, the US's fear was that it would spread all throughout the Pacific, from South Korea all the way to Japan, Indonesia, and Australia

 

[Gaborn]

haha, no, the US's fear was that it would spread all throughout the Pacific, from South Korea all the way to Japan, Indonesia, and Australia

What? This is complete revisionism of the scope of the fear.

 

[Walshicus]

Are you that delusional? The US "spread Democracy" in Korea too and they're still waiting for Kim Jong Il to decide to annihilate Seoul.

This stood out. I rather think the average South Korean appreciates the UN involvement in Korea, particularly when the alternative would have resulted in a Northern victory.

 

[theignoramus]

Sarkozy and Erdagon loudly disagreeing over Libya:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/24/turkey-france-clash-libya-campaign

Turkey has launched a bitter attack on French president Nicolas Sarkozy's and France's leadership of the military campaign against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, accusing the French of lacking a conscience in their conduct in the Libyan operations.

The vitriolic criticism, from both the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the president, Abdullah Gül followed attacks from the Turkish government earlier this week and signalled an orchestrated attempt by Ankara to wreck Sarkozy's plans to lead the air campaign against Gaddafi.

With France insisting that Nato should not be put in political charge of the UN-mandated air campaign, Turkey has come out emphatically behind sole Nato control of the operations.

The row came as France confirmed that one of its fighter jets had destroyed a Libyan air force plane, the first to breach the no-fly zone since it was imposed on 19 March. The Libyan G2/Galeb trainer aircraft was destroyed by an air-to-ground missile just after it landed at an air base near the rebel-held town of Misrata, a French military spokesman said.

The clash between Turkey and France over Libya is underpinned by acute frictions between Erdogan and Sarkozy, both impetuous and mercurial leaders who revel in the limelight, by fundamental disputes over Ankara's EU ambitions, and by economic interests in north Africa.

The confrontation is shaping up to be decisive in determining the outcome of the bitter infighting over who should inherit command of the Libyan air campaign from the Americans and could come to a head at a major conference in London next week of the parties involved.

Using incendiary language directed at France in a speech in Istanbul, Erdogan said: "I wish that those who only see oil, gold mines and underground treasures when they look in [Libya's] direction, would see the region through glasses of conscience from now on."

President Gül reinforced the Turkish view that France and others were being driven primarily by economic interests. "The aim [of the air campaign] is not the liberation of the Libyan people," he said. "There are hidden agendas and different interests."

Earlier this week, Claude Guéant, the French interior minister who was previously Sarkozy's chief adviser, outraged the Muslim world by stating that the French president was "leading a crusade" to stop Gaddafi massacring Libyans.

Erdogan denounced the use of the word crusade yesterday, blaming those, France chief among them, who are opposed to Turkey joining the EU.

 

[Gaborn]

This stood out. I rather think the average South Korean appreciates the UN involvement in Korea, particularly when the alternative would have resulted in a Northern victory.

Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean our end result is desirable either. We didn't even "win" in Korea, the best we got is a cease fire. At any moment the South Koreans living today in Seoul could be annihilated by the North Koreans. Of course they would be subsequently destroyed but that won't necessarily stop Kim Jong Il if he decides to do it. The man isn't stable after all.