• 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.

Joel Was Right

Gold Member
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/reporters-notebook-reading-the-rebels-in-western-libya-pt-i/

Behavior of Libyan rebels "at odds with the NATO mandate to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure"

Sad yet predictable
 

LQX

Member
This whole thing has become a farce. Another half ass war that's just wasting money and time and in the end they will not end up on the goodside of the west. I will lose my shit if at the end of this the US announces some type of billion dollar financial package to help the country.
 

leroidys

Member
LQX said:
This whole thing has become a farce. Another half ass war that's just wasting money and time and in the end they will not end up on the goodside of the west. I will lose my shit if at the end of this the US announces some type of billion dollar financial package to help the country.

Why?
 

leroidys

Member
Ahoi-Brause said:
Because the US had nothing to meddle with there anyways.
Killed a few kids, destroyed a few schools and that's about it.

I'm asking why would you be pissed if the US gave monetary aid to a country recovering from 40 years of dictatorship.

And your quip makes absolutely no sense at all and has nothing to do with reality, or even the subject at hand.
 

XtremeRampage

Neo Member
I see nobody blamed the France and Sarkozy's initiative...yes! Viva la France!

tHoMNZ said:
The russians report more truth than the propaganda outlets in the US and europe.
What is your argument fo...ah, you have been banned. Nevermind.

theignoramus said:
Now check out RT's interview with the Syrian regime...note the softball approach.
http://www.youtub.com/watch?v=IZazDKpDBAc
incidentally, the most thumbed up comments below the interview blame the CIA and the 'Jew Khazars" for the bad press the regime is getting.
Which is why I previously equate RT to Fox News...I take news from both media with a graint of salt.

Meus Renaissance said:
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/reporters-notebook-reading-the-rebels-in-western-libya-pt-i/

Behavior of Libyan rebels "at odds with the NATO mandate to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure"

Sad yet predictable
Indeed. But don't forget what Gaddafi has done to those who even slightly criticize him for over 40 years.
 

Clevinger

Member
LQX said:
This whole thing has become a farce. Another half ass war that's just wasting money and time and in the end they will not end up on the goodside of the west.

I doubt the rebels, or the civilians being shelled, believe it's a farce.
 
Yet another hit from Russia Today, the Kremlin's propaganda operation:
Libya campaign staged to start conquering Africa
No evidence is offered, no challenge to this theory is put forth by the interview.
Same with this one
'Hidden agenda in Syria to show itself after Bilderberg meeting'
This is the most popular 24 hour news channel on youtube, BTW. And it has a LEGION of dedicated (American) fans. I blame this on the American media, whose general cowardice and timid approach to authority drives skeptical people to news outlets that offer an insane, yet alternative, view point.
 
theignoramus said:
This is the most popular 24 hour news channel on youtube, BTW. And it has a LEGION of dedicated (American) fans. I blame this on the American media, whose general cowardice and timid approach to authority drives skeptical people to news outlets that offer an insane, yet alternative, view point.

I think your blame is well-placed. Myself not being a person bent on conspiratorial theorizing, finding actual info about what's going on in the world is quite challenging. You do have to search for yourself, gather info and compare and contrast, specifically because the US media is too obedient and non-critical to offer something close to an objective view. RT offers that one channel subscription which will explain everything about the world for you, and that's enough to earn legions of believers apparently. :(
 

goomba

Banned
Lol at the RT hate. I'd trust them over fox

If Libya is separated into two countries with UN troops on the ground I'll expect some apologies for their attacks on RT's credibility.
 
RustyNails said:
Absolutely hilarious report from BBC. This is just too awesome for a professional news agency. Please read the entire article because I don't wanna bold the funny bits.

Three days of farce in Gaddafi's Libya

What are the Western journalists even doing there in that Gaddafi-controlled press pack? It's been clear from day one that it's a complete waste of time, so I find it kind of stupid how, months on, at the end of that three-day trip they all got angry when they realised it was pointless.

They should either join the rebels and report with them, or just report from back home.
 
Zinga said:
I trust RT any day over Fox News, besides it's pretty clear US news channels as propaganda weapons all the time.
I abhore propaganda and spin of any type, whether from CNN, RT or Iran`s PressTv. You just have to know something about Russia or Iran`s agenda to see right through their facade. And on RT and PressTV, they are not reporting on Bashar al Assad`s crackdown. Even when RT talks about Syria, it doesnt talk about the Assad regime, it talks about NATO and the US supposedly organizing the anti-assad protests. it`s conspiracy fucking bullshit. Any informed person knows the United States, for no less than the first four months of the uprising, didnt want Assad overthrown. They encouraged dialogue with the regime. It was only after the US embassy was attacked when the US said Assad had lost legitimacy. The 1500 dead Syrians wasnt the red line, the attack on the US and French embassies were.
 
leroidys said:
I'm asking why would you be pissed if the US gave monetary aid to a country recovering from 40 years of dictatorship.

And your quip makes absolutely no sense at all and has nothing to do with reality, or even the subject at hand.
Spoiler:
America's killcount in the middle east goes into the millions at this moment.
This is bullshit and you know it and no kind of meta-political spintalk about freedom and democracy can justify this. Especially since the US aren't a real democracy in the first place.
 
Ahoi-Brause said:
Spoiler:
America's killcount in the middle east goes into the millions at this moment.
This is bullshit and you know it and no kind of meta-political spintalk about freedom and democracy can justify this. Especially since the US aren't a real democracy in the first place.
I never had any illusions about western intervention in Libya. But the fact of the matter is that the rebels would have been brutally crushed, had NATO NOT intervened. PERIOD. I have no doubts a Gadaffi assault on Benghazi would have been a brutal, ugly massacre of thousands of civilians. So the rebels made a pact with the mafia (NATO) to survive.
 
theignoramus said:
I never had any illusions about western intervention in Libya. But the fact of the matter is that the rebels would have been brutally crushed, had NATO NOT intervened. PERIOD. I have no doubts a Gadaffi assault on Benghazi would have been a brutal, ugly massacre of thousands of civilians. So the rebels made a pact with the mafia (NATO) to survive.
Who are those rebels anyways? And yeah, they probably would've been brutally crushed, just like you'd be brutally crushed if you'd try to start an armed uprising in the united states.
Another thing is that the NATO doesn't just help any radical muslim who's swinging a AK47.

The fact is that those guys are fanatic muslims who got an issue with libya being one of the north african countries with the most rights for women, free education for women and all the other goodies. Look at the "liberated" rebel cities, the women are already wearing their hijabs.
This is like when the US helped the taliban in the 80's.
It's disgusting but a great way to destabilize the region, which seems to be the overarching goal of american foreign policy.

And I'm not trying to defend gadaffi, he's a dictator - but it's fucking africa. Look at his neighbours. You'd rather have somalia or liberia?
 
Ahoi-Brause said:
Who are those rebels anyways? And yeah, they probably would've been brutally crushed, just like you'd be brutally crushed if you'd try to start an armed uprising in the united states.
Another thing is that the NATO doesn't just help any radical muslim who's swinging a AK47.

The fact is that those guys are fanatic muslims who got an issue with libya being one of the north african countries with the most rights for women, free education for women and all the other goodies. Look at the "liberated" rebel cities, the women are already wearing their hijabs.
This is like when the US helped the taliban in the 80's.
It's disgusting but a great way to destabilize the region, which seems to be the overarching goal of american foreign policy.
the united states isnt a dictatorship that quells dissent with brutal force. so your analogy is fucking absurd and deceitful.
 
theignoramus said:
the united states isnt a dictatorship that quells dissent with brutal force. so your analogy is fucking absurd and deceitful.
Dissent is something different than lynching black people because you're racist as fuck and then starting an uprising. Your analogy is fucking absurd as well.
Like I said, the US have NO reason to meddle with libya, especially considering how their allies in the middle east do the exact same fucking thing and how the rest of north and middle africa is just as fucked as libya.
The whole thing reeks and there is not a single rational thing to support obama's little war.
Because in the end it's the US who are bombing people now and the whole "protestors being bombed" shit was debunked by rt a while ago.
 

Kurtofan

Member
Ahoi-Brause said:
Who are those rebels anyways? And yeah, they probably would've been brutally crushed, just like you'd be brutally crushed if you'd try to start an armed uprising in the united states.
Another thing is that the NATO doesn't just help any radical muslim who's swinging a AK47.

The fact is that those guys are fanatic muslims who got an issue with libya being one of the north african countries with the most rights for women, free education for women and all the other goodies. Look at the "liberated" rebel cities, the women are already wearing their hijabs.
This is like when the US helped the taliban in the 80's.
It's disgusting but a great way to destabilize the region, which seems to be the overarching goal of american foreign policy.

And I'm not trying to defend gadaffi, he's a dictator - but it's fucking africa. Look at his neighbours. You'd rather have somalia or liberia?
The fuck?What is your proof that the rebels are horrible misogynists besides the fact that some Arab women wear the extremely common hijab?
I'm sure Qaddafi is a paragon of women's right.
 

Walshicus

Member
Ahoi-Brause said:
The fact is that those guys are fanatic muslims who got an issue with libya being one of the north african countries with the most rights for women, free education for women and all the other goodies. Look at the "liberated" rebel cities, the women are already wearing their hijabs.
Seriously? Really? The bulk of the protesters are professionals. The Arab Spring has been famous for its absence of extremism.

You've got a very warped view of what is actually happening.
 
Sir Fragula said:
Seriously? Really? The bulk of the protesters are professionals. The Arab Spring has been famous for its absence of extremism.

You've got a very warped view of what is actually happening.
The protesters in libya had nothing to do with the protesters in egypt.
Maybe you guys should watch less fox news.
But I'm sure we would've had the same discussion in the 80's about the taliban. So believe what you want, but you heard it here first.
 

Walshicus

Member
Ahoi-Brause said:
The protesters in libya had nothing to do with the protesters in egypt.
Maybe you guys should watch less fox news.
But I'm sure we would've had the same discussion in the 80's about the taliban. So believe what you want, but you heard it here first.
I don't think Fox News airs in England. I spent a lot of time on Al Jazeera when this kicked off, however.

Afghanistan and Libya are completely different. North Africa is historically and culturally linked to Europe while Central Asia has always been lawless. The parallels here are to Kosovo, not Afghanistan.
 

XtremeRampage

Neo Member
thefro said:
Nope. At least not yet. There's been fightings at Brega area for around two weeks but the rebels haven't really captured the whole town. Some reports mentioned about the area being heavily mined. Either that or the (eastern) rebels are not quite capable despite their superior firepower, or both.

Forever said:
The more I read from the updates the more it appears to be infighting among rebel factions. News:
Slain Libyan rebel chief's son seeks speedy trials

By HADEEL AL-SHALCHI, Associated Press – 2 days ago

BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — The son of the Libyan rebel military chief assassinated last week accused "traitors" within the opposition of killing his father to create cracks in the rebel ranks, and demanded an open investigation and speedy trial for the perpetrators.

In Tripoli, meanwhile, Moammar Gadhafi's regime vowed to keep fighting until it has reclaimed the whole country from the rebels.

The rebel leadership has insisted the assassination of military chief Abdel-Fattah Younis, who was killed Thursday, was the work of the Gadhafi regime, but several witnesses say Younis was killed by fellow rebels. The slaying has fueled concerns about unity within the revel movement nearly six months after the revolt began.

Younis' son, Moatassim, told The Associated Press late Monday that his family doesn't have "a clear idea of who killed my father, but we know that it was premeditated and we call for a speedy trial." Any delay, he said, would be considered "a move to circumvent the revolution."

He also acccused "individuals among us" of carrying out the assassination in an attempt "first to stop this revolution and secondly to incite violence in liberated cities."

No arrests have been made in connection with the killing.

Younis was Gadhafi's interior minister until he defected to the rebellion early in the uprising, bringing his forces into the opposition ranks. His move raised hopes among rebels and Western allies that the uprising could succeed in forcing out the country's ruler of more than four decades. But some rebels remained deeply suspicious that he retained loyalties to Gadhafi.....

People may have lost interest but anyway, (to summarize) some quick updates+news:
  • The rebels are pushing Gaddafi's forces at the north of Nafusa mountains and managed to capture some towns, it seems Gaddafi's forces have been encircled in the town of Tiji. Here's an old map of locations around Nafusa mountains to get an overview of the area.
  • The rebels are rumored to have enter Zlitan, the last sizeable town between Misrata and Tripoli.
  • A missile launched from Libya landed harmlessly (Wednesday) 2km from an Italian warship sailing off the Libyan coast.
 

XtremeRampage

Neo Member
Interesting article about Libyans abroad return to join the uprising, one of them appears to be a former German club football player:

Libyan fighters from Tripoli hope to free capital
By KARIN LAUB - Associated Press

NALUT, Libya -- The rebel fighters of the Tripoli Brigade have one goal - to be among the first to enter the Libyan capital and kick out Moammar Gadhafi and his cronies.

They say their intimate knowledge of the city makes them best suited for the job. Nearly all the 475 men either grew up in Tripoli or have family there. Several weeks ago, they moved from the eastern to the western front in Libya's five-month-old civil war because it's closer to the capital.

Dozens of the brigade fighters left behind comfortable lives in exile to volunteer for war: a building contractor from Dublin, a university student from Washington, D.C., a shipping engineer from Munich, an X-ray technician from Athens.

Their new home is a two-story university dormitory in Nalut, a frontline town in Libya's rebel-controlled western Nafusa mountains, about 280 kilometers (175 miles) from Tripoli.

Dreams of reaching the capital - seemingly detached from reality during months of battlefield deadlock - recently got new wings. Late last week, brigade fighters, along with hundreds of local rebels, for the first time pushed back Gadhafi's forces in the coastal plain below the mountain.

On the first day of the offensive, fighters took three small towns in the plain. But Gadhafi's men's - entrenched in Tiji, a town about 40 kilometers (25 miles) north of Nalut - have since halted the advance with rockets.

On Monday, Hosam Najjair, the Irish building contractor, toured a frontline rebel camp several miles from Tiji where dozens of fighters were napping under olive trees and in empty rooms of an abandoned farm house. It was the first day of the fasting month of Ramadan, and the men, most going without food and drink despite the intense heat, were conserving energy.

Tiji will not hold up the momentum, vowed Najjair, son of a Libyan father and an Irish mother. "We want to keep the advance going," Najjair said in an Irish brogue, a Romanian-made sniper rifle slung over his shoulder. "Our goal now is to reach Tripoli at all costs."

The brigade was formed in late April in Benghazi, the rebels' de facto capital in opposition-controlled eastern Libya, said Bashir, a 28-year-old software engineer who grew up in Canada.

The fighters first set up shop in a school, but the Benghazi leadership kept its distance.

"They didn't want chaos, they didn't want just anyone to start a brigade" and perhaps even feared outsiders could serve as a vehicle for al-Qaida, said Bashir, a brigade spokesman who did not give a last name for fear of retribution against his parents in Tripoli.

He laughed off the al-Qaida suspicions. "We don't have a religious agenda," said the black-beared Bashir, noting that many in the brigade smoke, listen to music or are clean-shaven, hardly the hallmarks of fervent Islamists.

The brigade has collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations, including from Libyan exiles, and over the past two months transferred most of the fighters to the western front, where they now work closely with the local fighters. In addition to Nalut, there are some brigade fighters in the mountain town of Zintan.

Bashir said about five to 10 new volunteers ask to join every day, both from Tripoli and from abroad.

Those from Tripoli take a roundabout way, since Gadhadi's army blocks the direct route. They leave western Libya via a Gadhafi-controlled border crossing to Tunisia; passage is possible since the Gadhafi regime generally permits Libyans to visit the neighboring country. From Tunisia, they head south, then enter the mountain area through a rebel-run crossing. Recently, rebels have also flown several planes carrying weapons and fighters from Benghazi to the Nafusa area.

The brigade headquarters in Nalut are high-tech and organized, perhaps not surprising considering the large number of professionals among the fighters. Each new recruit is issued a swipe card with a service number, blood type and other details. The data base shows engineers, taxi drivers and electricians among the Tripoli volunteers.

In the media room, one of its walls covered by a huge rebel tricolor flag, Abdel Hakim Mishry, a former trader from Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte, edits video from the front for the brigade's Facebook page and distribution to journalists.

With the start of Ramadan and the recent territorial gains, morale is high among the fighters, especially those from the U.S. and Europe who say they have found new meaning in their lives.

Adam, a 22-year-old junior with a double major in psychology and sociology at George Washington University, said he's not sorry he left school in March to join the war. He told his Libyan parents, who also live in Washington, about his plans only after he'd bought the plane ticket.

"You value things more and get a better perspective on life," said Adam, sporting thick black-rimmed glasses, military fatigues and a bandana in camouflage colors. If he survives the war, he plans to go back to school to finish his degree and then settle in a free Libya. Adam did not give his full name, citing concern for relatives in Tripoli.

Many of the exiles had left Libya in the first place because of Gadhafi, saying his cruel rule blocked any hope of a decent life.

Ali Ibrahim was 18 when he settled in Germany 31 years ago. He became a shipping engineer and now lives in Munich, running a company there and in Dubai. In his 20s, he played as a midfielder for a second league football club near Munich.

Ibrahim said he had a good life, but still felt compelled to drop everything when the uprising against Gadhafi erupted in February. "There is a chance for our people to have a better life than before," said Ibrahim who, when not fighting, serves as the brigade's fitness trainer.

The common purpose makes up for the high risk of battle on this lawless front, where sniper ambushes, random attacks with inaccurate Grad rockets and mines strewn across roads by retreating Gadhafi troops are commonplace. On Sunday, two brigade fighters, ages 18 and 20, were killed by rocket shrapnel near Tiji, and all here know they could easily meet the same fate.

"They have ammunition to burn," Najjair said of Gadhafi's forces. "We have barely any."
 

Loudninja

Member
Libyan rebels: NATO airstrike kills Gadhafi's son
BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — Libya's rebels said Friday they have reports that Moammar Gadhafi's youngest son, who commands one of the regime's strongest military brigades, was killed in a NATO airstrike in the western town of Zlitan.

NATO said in a statement that it was aware of the reports that Khamis Gadhafi had been killed, but it did not confirm his death. It said alliance strikes on Thursday night hit an ammunition depot and military police facility in Zlitan, which is the main front of fighting between rebels and Gadhafi's troops, 90 miles (140 kilometers) southeast of Tripoli.

Mohammed al-Rajali, a spokesman for the rebel leadership in the eastern stronghold of Benghazi said there were unconfirmed reports Khamis was among 32 troops killed when NATO hit a government operations center early Friday.
http://news.yahoo.com/libyan-rebels-nato-airstrike-kills-gadhafis-son-095404406.html
 
All kinds of rumours flying around that two South African planes have landed in Tripoli to secure Gadaffi's exile terms before NATO make a big push in Tripoli.

This one could be coming to an end.

LibyaAlHurraTV : @LibyaTV (Al Hrrar) is reporting that two SOUTH AFRICAN planes have landed in #Tripoli airport with PERMISSION from @NATO. #Libya

Al Jazeera

Sources: #Gaddafi envoy is negotiating with #US on Libyan dictator’s exit from country aboard South Africa president’s jet. #Libya
 

XtremeRampage

Neo Member
Sources: Libyan revolutionaries hoisted their flag in the centre of Zawiyah, 50 km (30 miles) west of Tripoli, on Sunday after the most dramatic advance in months cut off Muammar Gaddafi’s capital from its main link to the outside world.

Advancing Libyan rebels turn sights on Tripoli

ZAWIYAH, Libya Aug 14 (Reuters) - By: Michael Georgy
For Issam Legun, the fact that he and his fellow rebels were standing inside this town near Tripoli on Sunday felt like a turning point in the six month conflict with Muammar Gaddafi’s forces.

“I hope we can go and attack Tripoli in a few days,” said Legun, a taxi driver turned anti-Gaddafi fighter who was wearing a T-shirt with the word “Raw” written across it. “Now that we have Zawiyah, we can free Libya,” he said.

Rebels from the Western Mountains region, about 100 km south of here, poured into Zawiyah on Saturday and by early on Sunday controlled most of the town, though pro-Gaddafi forcers were still holding out in northern districts.

Taking the capital is still a long way off: Gaddafi is likely to have withdrawn his best-trained forces to save them for the defence of Tripoli. And rebels have said before their victory is imminent, only for Gaddafi to fight back.

Nevertheless, entering Zawiyah was a major development in a conflict which for months now has been close to deadlock, with the rebels advancing small distances at great cost in lives.

“I’m 1,000 percent sure we’re going to take over Zawiyah today and then move on to Tripoli,” said Bin Jaffin Ali, 34, a rebel fighter who used to be a shopkeeper.

Some 50 rebels, armed with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades, gathered near Zawiyah’s main produce market.

They shouted “Allahu Akbar!,” or “God is greatest!” Nearby, the red, black and green rebel flag was flying from a shop.

Pickup trucks with sand smeared on their bodywork for camouflage and large-calibre guns mounted on the back — the rebels’ favoured mode of transport — drove around the streets.

In the outskirts of the town, civilian vehicles drove past with the passengers giving the “V for victory” sign.

The rebel attack on Zawiyah, on Libya’s Mediterranean coast, is the most dramatic advance into Gaddafi-controlled territory since the uprising against his 41-year rule began.

The fact that the rebels have advanced so close to Tripoli is likely to deliver a psychological blow to Gaddafi’s supporters. The government in Tripoli on Saturday denied rebels were in control, saying it successfully repelled a small attack.

Zawiyah lies on the main highway between Tripoli and the border with Tunisia, so the rebel advance effectively cuts Tripoli off from its supply lifeline.

The city could also be starved of the fuel produced by the oil refinery in Zawiyah, the only functioning refinery left in western Libya.
 

XtremeRampage

Neo Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFwcakPnZXI

Situation map as of August 12th, note that a lot of movements happened over the last three days...

9KIkD.jpg
 

Walshicus

Member
zomgbbqftw said:
All kinds of rumours flying around that two South African planes have landed in Tripoli to secure Gadaffi's exile terms before NATO make a big push in Tripoli.

This one could be coming to an end.

LibyaAlHurraTV : @LibyaTV (Al Hrrar) is reporting that two SOUTH AFRICAN planes have landed in #Tripoli airport with PERMISSION from @NATO. #Libya

Al Jazeera

Sources: #Gaddafi envoy is negotiating with #US on Libyan dictator’s exit from country aboard South Africa president’s jet. #Libya
Could be quite interesting. Would be better all around if he just left rather than having the NTC government's troops besieging Tripoli for weeks.
 

XtremeRampage

Neo Member
Libya rebels and government hold talks in Tunisia: source

(Reuters) - Libyan rebels and representatives of Muammar Gaddafi's government held negotiations late Sunday in a hotel in southern Tunisia, a source with direct knowledge of the talks told Reuters.

There was no immediate confirmation that any talks were taking place from the government in Tripoli or the rebel movement.

The talks were being conducted behind closed doors at a hotel on the Tunisian island of Djerba near the border with Libya, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He did not identify any of those involved in the negotiations.

"Representatives of the rebels and Gaddafi representatives are having a meeting now," said the source.

Speculation that Gaddafi may seek talks have intensified since rebel fighters fought their way into the town of Zawiyah west of Tripoli at the weekend, cutting off Gaddafi's stronghold in the capital from its supply lifeline to Tunisia....
 

Gaborn

Member
zomgbbqftw said:
All kinds of rumours flying around that two South African planes have landed in Tripoli to secure Gadaffi's exile terms before NATO make a big push in Tripoli.

This one could be coming to an end.

LibyaAlHurraTV : @LibyaTV (Al Hrrar) is reporting that two SOUTH AFRICAN planes have landed in #Tripoli airport with PERMISSION from @NATO. #Libya

Al Jazeera

Sources: #Gaddafi envoy is negotiating with #US on Libyan dictator’s exit from country aboard South Africa president’s jet. #Libya

End? EVEN IF Gadaffi leaves we're still going to be paying to support the new rebel government.
 

leroidys

Member
Gaborn said:
End? EVEN IF Gadaffi leaves we're still going to be paying to support the new rebel government.


As long as we are contributing a penny the nation of Libya is still in a state of civil war. You heard it here first folks.
 
Gaborn said:
End? EVEN IF Gadaffi leaves we're still going to be paying to support the new rebel government.
I think he was talking about the whole Arab Spring thing where countries that have never seen democracy are struggling to gain freedom for the first time.

But if you want to talk in practical terms, I personally think that it's a worthy investment to have a wealthy, democratic ally in Northern Africa with some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world. The pro-western sentiment coming out of Libya is a very nice contrast to the other nations in the region. We saved their asses and they know it.

A free Libya can be an ideological and economic ally in the region unlike any we've had before, one that will endure after America loses the leverage it uses to hold over its dictatorial allies.
 

Gaborn

Member
leroidys said:
As long as we are contributing a penny the nation of Libya is still in a state of civil war. You heard it here first folks.

I didn't say that. I took him to mean "the ramifications of the event in question are over." I mean, it's true that at midnight on september 11 the 9/11 attacks were over but that doesn't mean that the ramifications and reverberations of those events are over. The US and NATO task does not end with his departure should he in fact leave or be captured or killed (or continue to survive in power long term). Instead our task will continue.

Ignis - It might be a worthy investment for a country that can afford continuing foreign adventures and nation building. If China wants to do it they're welcome to. For that matter France has every reason economically to get involved (since they get so much of their oil from Libya). The US does not.
 
Gaborn said:
I didn't say that. I took him to mean "the ramifications of the event in question are over." I mean, it's true that at midnight on september 11 the 9/11 attacks were over but that doesn't mean that the ramifications and reverberations of those events are over. The US and NATO task does not end with his departure should he in fact leave or be captured or killed (or continue to survive in power long term). Instead our task will continue.

Ignis - It might be a worthy investment for a country that can afford continuing foreign adventures and nation building. If China wants to do it they're welcome to. For that matter France has every reason economically to get involved (since they get so much of their oil from Libya). The US does not.
I expect that the vast majority of the nation building will indeed come from European nations who have the highest stakes. I'm not sure why you expect it to be otherwise. France has been especially aggressive in getting into the good graces of the new government. If you're just advocating total isolationism then that's simply not a realistic policy in today's world.

Also NATO is a military alliance. What role do you anticipate them having in reconstruction efforts, exactly?
 

Gaborn

Member
Ignis Fatuus said:
I expect that the vast majority of the nation building will indeed come from European nations who have the highest stakes. I'm not sure why you expect it to be otherwise. France has been especially aggressive in getting into the good graces of the new government. If you're just advocating total isolationism then that's simply not a realistic policy in today's world.

Also NATO is a military alliance. What role do you anticipate them having in reconstruction efforts, exactly?

In the first place I do not favor ANY form of nation building. That is not our purpose. Then again my position was in the beginning and remains we should not have gone into Libya and Obama ESPECIALLY should not have done so lacking in congressional authorization and CONTINUING without congressional authorization is a further flouting of what I believe to be current law.

In the second place, as to WHY I expect it to be otherwise, when was the last time the US was involved in a major war or nation building effort and was NOT the major economic force behind it? Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti... When?

As for the role I expect us to have, I expect us to take a role very similar to Iraq or Afghanistan. Gaddafi has been in power a LONG time and Libya is very very tribal. While there is consensus he must go I do not believe there will be consensus the government that takes over must stay. I further do not believe the government that takes over will have the training or the resources necessary to adequately run the country without large amounts of assistance from foreign forces. Nor do I believe that their military and local police will be adequate at any level to provide security to those elements that wish to dissent from the rule of the new de facto government.
 
Gaborn said:
In the first place I do not favor ANY form of nation building. That is not our purpose.
If you're against any form of Libyan investment at all, which wouldn't surprise me given your ideology, then you're just subscribing to the standard unrealistic libertarian isolationist foreign policy. And despite what Ron Paul may say, it is indeed isolationist as much as it is unrealistic. The technocratic Chinese are not engaging in it for kicks and certainly not out of charity. They understand as well as we do the importance of foreign investment. In return we get contracts for American companies, access to natural resources, a slew of benefits that are economic in nature.

That's without even trying to put a cost on transforming Libya into a pro-western democratic oasis as opposed to a tightly suppressed anti-western militant spawning pool.

Gaborn said:
I expect us to take a role very similar to Iraq or Afghanistan. Gaddafi has been in power a LONG time and Libya is very very tribal. While there is consensus he must go I do not believe there will be consensus the government that takes over must stay. I further do not believe the government that takes over will have the training or the resources necessary to adequately run the country without large amounts of assistance from foreign forces. Nor do I believe that their military and local police will be adequate at any level to provide security to those elements that wish to dissent from the rule of the new de facto government.
You really think that American troops are going to occupy the country, on a large scale no less? I don't even know how to respond to that. I'm willing to bet my account with you on this because that is an absurd proposition for all the reasons that should be obvious.
 

Clevinger

Member
Gaborn said:
Obama ESPECIALLY should not have done so lacking in congressional authorization and CONTINUING without congressional authorization is a further flouting of what I believe to be current law.

Agreed. Though it's pretty sad and a little funny that Congress had the opportunity to end this, but instead they sent the shitty mixed message of not authorizing it, but continuing to fund it. Fuck them.
 

Gaborn

Member
Ignis Fatuus said:
If you're against any form of Libyan investment at all, which wouldn't surprise me given your ideology, then you're just subscribing to the standard unrealistic libertarian isolationist foreign policy.

My foreign policy is hardly isolationism. Isolationists do not believe in free and fair trade with all, they would favor a withdrawl from the world. I favor a MILITARY withdrawl and an ECONOMIC expansion. I want to lift the trade embargo with countries like Cuba, I want to remove barriers that we put in place in the free and fair exchange of goods to supposedly protect our industries at the ultimate expense of consumers. I want the US to be ENGAGED in the world, but I don't want it to do so through military prowess. You call that unrealistic, I call that every other country today except the US.

And despite what Ron Paul may say, it is indeed isolationist as much as it is unrealistic. The technocratic Chinese are not engaging in it for kicks and certainly not out of charity. They understand as well as we do the importance of foreign investment. In return we get contracts for American companies, access to natural resources, a slew of benefits that are economic in nature.

I said nothing against foreign investment. There is a difference between investing in another country and dedicating your resources to rebuilding a government and propping it up to hope you can create a US friendly regime by getting "your guy" (or woman) in place.

That's without even trying to put a cost on transforming Libya into a pro-western democratic oasis as opposed to a tightly suppressed anti-western militant spawning pool.

Actually I would say that was my line. The truth is the "liberator" can quickly become the occupier. Iraq was not unhappy to see Saddam go, but they have been DECIDEDLY unhappy to have us there. What once was the liberator quickly becomes the interloper as the people wish to handle their internal affairs internally.


You really think that American troops are going to occupy the country, on a large scale no less? I don't even know how to respond to that. I'm willing to bet my account with you on this because that is an absurd proposition for all the reasons that should be obvious.

Technically I'm sure they'll call them "peacekeepers" but yes, it seems likely. You really seem to be blind to the tribal nature of Libya. This isn't going to be a neat little transition of power, it's going to get ugly.

Clevinger - I completely agree. This is a terrible precedent the congress is setting. Essentially it seems an endorsement of the imperial presidency wherein the President, as commander in chief is essentially limitless because the congress doesn't care. Frankly I miss the anti-war movement.
 

Walshicus

Member
How much has NATO's saving of Libya actually cost the Yanks? I'd have thought the Anglo-French costs were far higher, though still relatively low.

Just seems odd that you're complaining as much as you are Gaborn, when one of the defining aspects of the Libya conflict so far has been the relative absence of the America and the prominence of Europe.
 

Gaborn

Member
Sir Fragula said:
How much has NATO's saving of Libya actually cost the Yanks? I'd have thought the Anglo-French costs were far higher, though still relatively low.

In terms of actual costs? Probably a few billion dollars, relatively cheap monetarily to this point.

Just seems odd that you're complaining as much as you are Gaborn, when one of the defining aspects of the Libya conflict so far has been the relative absence of the America and the prominence of Europe.

I have several objections to this war, or, to use the newspeak term from the White House "kinetic military action."

In the first place, as with Iraq our national security interests were not directly threatened. You could have argued whether France's could have been, since they get 20% of their oil from Libya and, unsurprisingly, cut a deal with the rebels AND have been the most active driver of the w- oh, sorry, "kinetic military action."

Second, in the course of this "kinetic military action" Obama has chosen to enter into it without seeking specific congressional authorization. He went to the Arab League. He went to the UN. Yet Obama felt that he had no need to go before congress and ask for authorization to bring the nation, even indirectly into a 3rd foreign w- kinetic military action.
The Obama administration claims because the W word (arguably "W' has been out of fashion in Washington since January 2009 anyway though I suppose....) does not, in their view apply that the President need not seek congressional authorization for "kinetic military action" and therefore it is constitutionally acceptable that the president has not done so. It is possible they are right on this point, congress is certainly not challenging them on the issue. However, whether or not Obama is constitutionally required to seek authorization (and I would think he in fact IS even if congress is for it's own reasons choosing to give him a pass) it sets another terrible precedent in a string of terrible precedents.

In the 20th century and particularly in the last 10 years Presidents have frequently used military force in conflicts to enforce some policy objective. In semi-rare occasions this could escalate into US involvement in a full blown war. One such example is Vietnam. The Vietnam war properly started in the 50s, with the Chinese backed Viet Minh as a political group seeking Vietnam/indochina's independence from France. I hate to really skip ahead here but essentially, because of concerns over the "domino theory" (basically if one country in a region adopts communism others around it are at risk) Eisenhower sent in a small force to protect US interests. Well eventually France leaves, Johnson escalates the war and... for what. All for an idea. We lost 10s of thousands of good men and women because of the notion that a political ideology, albeit one I find detestable is worth fighting and dying over. Many people at the time considered this a worthy objective, many vehemently disagreed.

Nonetheless, preceeding Korea, and proceeded by other, much smaller interventions we have seen the rise of the imperial President. A president not restrained in foreign policy by Congress, concerned with nothing more than his own personal policy objectives. I have no doubt the rebels in Libya are worth lauding for opposing a dictatorship. I have grave doubts it's worth setting the precedent that the President need not consult congress when committing our troops even in a mostly indirect manner to a conflict.

I have loudly and consistently decried the Iraq war, and Afghanistan as well (though I thought you could justify the invasion, I would have left after the election of Karzai) because I oppose at a fundamental level nation building. I oppose building schools in a foreign country when so many of our own schools are struggling. I oppose building bridges elsewhere when our own infrastructure is decrepit. And yet, as bitterly as I oppose those wars, as fundamental as my opposition is to their very premise... they were authorized by congress. we have an AUMF against Al Qaeda and those that sheltered them (which would include the Taliban of course) and one against Iraq. Bush did little else especially in regard to Iraq, but he did that much. Whereas Obama did EVERYTHING else... but he didn't ask Congress at all. So which is worse? BOTH. They're both fundamentally flawed approaches.

But even if you personally are ok with all of that, are you going to be ok with the next guy? Look, I understand there are a lot of Democrats now who are somewhat unhappy with Obama and who understandably hated Bush. But there is STILL an intense hypocrisy I'm frustrated by. I think we can agree for a long while there was a very strong anti-war movement in the Democratic party... at least while Bush was President. Yet look at the casualty figures. According to [URL="http://icasualties.org/[/URL] the US has lost 1108 soldiers in Afghanistan just since Obama took office. In Bush's entire presidency the US lost 630 according to their figures. It is true Obama's Iraq numbers are better overall than that, 253 according to the same source, and each of Obama's years were significantly less than any of Bush's years.

What am I saying, that Obama should be blamed for these deaths? Hellll no. What I am saying is that the reason there is no anti-war movement coalescing around the increased deaths in Afghanistan like there was around the casualty figures in Iraq just like the outrage over Libya is mostly VERY muted - is because of who occupies the white house. It would be nice to believe that people that are keeping quiet now are doing so out of principle, but in reality I believe very strongly people's reactions on both sides are political. I believe the stance I am taking reflects my principles, my values, and my beliefs because in my case I oppose all such actions.

I do not believe GAF for example would be reacting to this "kinetic military action" the same way if it was a Republican, and I fear that the precedent Obama has set will be used by future administrations, Republican and Democrat alike and while each side will likely protest in those future instances it will sound feeble - and ring just a bit hollow.
 

Walshicus

Member
Gaborn said:
I do not believe GAF for example would be reacting to this "kinetic military action" the same way if it was a Republican, and I fear that the precedent Obama has set will be used by future administrations, Republican and Democrat alike and while each side will likely protest in those future instances it will sound feeble - and ring just a bit hollow.
I still think you're overstating the American involvement here. Your government had to be dragged kicking into line with we English and the French's support for the democratic movement in Libya. And when it did happen your involvement spiked for a few days at the start and then turned into little more than a support role shortly after.

The party of the person in the American White House seems irrelevant. Maybe the perception is different *within* the US, but from here I just don't see this as really having an American dimension.
 

Gaborn

Member
Sir Fragula said:
I still think you're overstating the American involvement here. Your government had to be dragged kicking into line with we English and the French's support for the democratic movement in Libya. And when it did happen your involvement spiked for a few days at the start and then turned into little more than a support role shortly after.

The party of the person in the American White House seems irrelevant. Maybe the perception is different *within* the US, but from here I just don't see this as really having an American dimension.

EVEN IF you think involving us in the "kinetic military action" was justified refusing to get congressional authorization and the implications of that, for me are inexcusable. You think I'm over stating it, I do not at the MINIMUM because of the absolutely awful precedent it sets. The imperial presidency has needed to be reined in for a long time and it needs it now more than ever.

And if you don't see it having an American dimension then let us totally walk away.
 
Sir Fragula said:
How much has NATO's saving of Libya actually cost the Yanks? I'd have thought the Anglo-French costs were far higher, though still relatively low.

Just seems odd that you're complaining as much as you are Gaborn, when one of the defining aspects of the Libya conflict so far has been the relative absence of the America and the prominence of Europe.

Their spend is lower than ours. Britain has done most of the heavy lifting in this operation, it has cost over £2bn and it will be paid for with money from the Treasury reserve. Still, Dave got Parliamentary approval to go into Libya, I don't think Obama has continuing Congressional approval for military action.

I really hope this is over and Afghanistan also comes to an end soon. It would be nice to not be fighting wars for once...
 

Loudninja

Member
Gaddafi defiant, rebels put capital under siege
ZAWIYAH, Libya (Reuters) - Libyan rebels said on Monday they had seized a second strategic town near Tripoli within 24 hours, cutting off the capital's two main supply routes after the boldest advances of their six-month-old uprising against Muammar Gaddafi.

A defiant and apparently isolated Gaddafi urged his followers to fight the "rats" (rebels), in a barely audible telephone call broadcast on state television overnight.

Gaddafi's forces fired mortars and rockets at the coastal town of Zawiyah a day after rebels captured it in a thrust that severed the vital coastal highway from Tripoli to the Tunisian border and could prove a turning point in the war.

Rebels said they had also captured the town of Garyan south of Tripoli. That could not be immediately verified, but if true, it would tighten the siege of the capital.

"Garyan is fully in the hands of the revolutionaries. They crushed the Sahban Brigade, the main command center for Gaddafi in the Western Mountains. They took the brigade's heavy and light weapons," a rebel spokesman, Abdulrahman, said by phone.

"Gaddafi has been isolated. He has been cut off from the outside world."
http://news.yahoo.com/libyan-rebels-fly-flag-over-key-town-near-003129547.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom