Support NeoGAF

[Joel Was Right]

One out of three is OBJECTIVELY AND ULTIMATELY BAD.

Right.

On one hand, we have condemnation of the action on the grounds that you can't tread on all these geo-political eggshells. On the other, we have condemnation on the grounds that nations are unwilling to unleash hell on multiple fronts.

I want the question asked to the French/American president and British PM. They'll ignore it, because otherwise they'll have to admit they are not just being driven by moral reasons. You say objectively bad..what would happen if those protests increased and you saw more dead than in Libya. What if that spread to Saudi Arabia? Nothing. What if Libya becomes the honey for extremists? What if Gadaffi doesn't leave? Objectively, there is no way to know what the outcome of this will be, and if we're to measure our actions on geopolitics, then how can this fact be ignored?

I wonder what would happen if Arabs protested against US military bases in their country. I doubt we'd see that on Fox and CNN

 

[Swifty]

I am all for the engagements against Gaddafi, but that everyone's bombing and especially USA's are pretty much careless. Especially yesterday's 120 tomahawks seemed like grave overreaction from US part.

Who are you to judge how many missiles and bombs are needed to disable the SAM sites and radar stations of an entire country? These are precision guided munitions. They're not iron bombs that you drop indiscriminately. Each Tomahawk missile has to be programmed with a target. They have mission planners beforehand who figure out what these targets are going to be based on gathered intelligence. They're not going to waste a missile or bomb on targets that don't chip away at Libya's air defenses. There's nothing "careless" as so you claim.

Thus is why I am concerned by the fact US takes over the command from France. I'd be much comfortable if France made the ordering.

False, the initial operation is being commanded by US Navy Admiral Samuel J Locklear. After this first phase is done, the US is transferring command and control to someone else.

 

[Veidt]

Why aren't they assassinating Gaddafi? It's not like he's in hiding in a cave like Bin Laden, I'm sure it's not hard to find the guy?


Regime change isn't always a good idea but in this case I think it would be ideal. I can't imagine there being much of a civil war after he goes down, because only Gaddafi's family and tribe are on his side.

Which is pretty large. And holds the entire arsenal of the nation.
You'll just get a replacement. But maybe, if you're lucky, some internal fighting.

 

[Salazar]

And how will that be translated as? It'll be seen as selective and hypocritical, and not the mission of freedom but rather a bombing campaign against Libya rather than a campaign against Gadaffi.

Nations can't really accommodate more than a little bit the potential "translations" of African and Middle Eastern political discourse in their strategy. That way lies timorous inaction and tacit acknowledgement that you are not at all dedicated to the enfranchisement of folks in that part of the world, instead of (allegedly) selectively dedicated to it.

I imagine Blair, Sarkozy, Obama et al would concede (if likely not on television) that they are not being motivated by "purely" humanitarian reasons. A purely humanitarian leader with an army would wreak tenfold the chaos in the region that you and the Abdel chap in the Grauniad (justifiably) worry about.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

Nations can't really accommodate more than a little bit the potential "translations" of African and Middle Eastern political discourse in their strategy. That way lies timorous inaction and tacit acknowledgement that you are not at all dedicated to the enfranchisement of folks in that part of the world, instead of (allegedly) selectively dedicated to it.

I imagine Blair, Sarkozy, Obama et al would concede (if likely not on television) that they are not being motivated by "purely" humanitarian reasons. A purely humanitarian leader with an army would wreak tenfold the chaos in the region that you and the Abdel chap in the Grauniad (justifiably) worry about.

I completely agree, and would even go as far as to claim there is no such thing as a selfless good deed. Who knows though...just my opinion.

 

[raphier]

Who are you to judge how many missiles and bombs are needed to disable the SAM sites and radar stations of an entire country? These are precision guided munitions. They're not iron bombs that you drop indiscriminately. Each Tomahawk missile has to be programmed with a target. They have mission planners beforehand who figure out what these targets are going to be based on gathered intelligence. They're not going to waste a missile or bomb on targets that don't chip away at Libya's air defenses. There's nothing "careless" as so you claim..

Well you say they are precision guided munitions. That should mean that you need less of them to hit your target. Before guided missiles the army had to use multiple missiles because most of the bombs hit their targets indirectly. And they still use them in large numbers, hence my suggestion that they may have rushed to fire those to make indirect action. Even french fought vehicles, without briefing the allies, which is a little concerning, but I hope they slowdown a bit since today.

do you mean the 110 missiles? that isnt a large number for 20+ targets.

mm, I've might have misjudged the calculations...

 

[Your Excellency]

There was no large internal resistance force in Iraq.

...wait, what?!

 

[Roude Leiw]

Well you say they are precision guided munitions. That should mean that you need less of them to hit your target. Before guided missiles the army had to use multiple missiles because most of the bombs hit their targets indirectly. And they still use them in large numbers, hence my suggestion that they may have rushed to fire those to make indirect action. Even french fought vehicles, without briefing the allies.

do you mean the 110 missiles? that isnt a large number for 20+ targets.

 

[remnant]

Nope. It's a good thing they are doing something, it's just hypocritical.

What's more important? Making smart choices or appearing hypocritical

 

[Joel Was Right]

A report on Sky News referred to Libyan claims that 48 were killed and 150 were wounded from the cruise missiles, but then added it hasn't been confirmed by independent sources. At the bottom of the screen then we see a figure of 94 people killed in Benghazi by Gadaffi forces. How was that confirmed? Not saying it's wrong but with journalists in both Tripoli and Benghazi, who are these independent sources that are only present in the latter?

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

Capable of calculatedly taking deranged options.

From a desperate man yes.

ALthough that's not avoiding what he's doing now, I think it's horrendous. Probably why I think the UN are only "evening" things up, rather than going on a full attack.

I hope this can be solved diplomatically, somehow. I still have faith in diplomacy

 

[Vincent Alexander]

A report on Sky News referred to Libyan claims that 48 were killed and 150 were wounded from the cruise missiles, but then added it hasn't been confirmed by independent sources. At the bottom of the screen then we see a figure of 94 people killed in Benghazi by Gadaffi forces. How was that confirmed? Not saying it's wrong but with journalists in both Tripoli and Benghazi, who are these independent sources that are only present in the latter?

The attack on Benghazi started half-a-day-ish before the coalition forces actually began their attacks. Maybe they've just had more time to confirm? I'd say if by tomorrow we don't have any more info. on the claims about cruise missile deaths, then we can get suspicious.

 

[Zeke]

there were report of his forces planting bodies to make it look like they were killed by coalition forces someone posted it a few pages back. I wonder of there is a connection.

 

[Roude Leiw]

A report on Sky News referred to Libyan claims that 48 were killed and 150 were wounded from the cruise missiles, but then added it hasn't been confirmed by independent sources. At the bottom of the screen then we see a figure of 94 people killed in Benghazi by Gadaffi forces. How was that confirmed? Not saying it's wrong but with journalists in both Tripoli and Benghazi, who are these independent sources that are only present in the latter?

journalists arent able to confirm anything said by libyan state tv (gaddafis propaganda channel). they cant walk around freely. they are all kept at a place and their guards will show them stuff they want them to see. in bengasi they can go to wherever they want to.

 

[Tabris]

What's more important? Making smart choices or appearing hypocritical

Well that's an interesting question because I think if the main objective of all of this is stability in this region, then while this may be the "smart choice" in the short term for them, it's the bad choice in the long run. It's these hypocritical actions that Western Powers, especially the US, has had such a long history with, that fuel radicalism.

This is not the way to stabilize the region. You can't treat the Middle East/North Africa as separate countries when making your decisions as the radical elements often don't have borders.

 

[Your Excellency]

A report on Sky News referred to Libyan claims that 48 were killed and 150 were wounded from the cruise missiles, but then added it hasn't been confirmed by independent sources. At the bottom of the screen then we see a figure of 94 people killed in Benghazi by Gadaffi forces. How was that confirmed? Not saying it's wrong but with journalists in both Tripoli and Benghazi, who are these independent sources that are only present in the latter?

I suspect the Libyan claims need independent sources because Libyan TV has demonstrated time and time again that it is full of lies. They make shit up out of the top of their heads - there's plenty of documented evidence of this.


The 94 dead figure in Benghazi probably comes from doctors+journalists+aid agencies on the scene, so is far more reliable.

 

[subversus]

My crack pot theory while waiting for downloading BG&E XBLA:

They want a bigger pie of Libya oil. EU used to get 80% of it and that's why EU are the most butt hurt ones about this region's unstability (and the first ones to start attack too). Now the US is in the game. I'm not so sure if France is too happy about it. China didn't veto it is probably because of the same reason: we've invested quite a lot there but still can't get shit (all of the investments in Libya are in red I heard).

yeah, I thought the same but now I think they'll spend more money on war then american companies will get from oil sales and pay in taxes.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I suspect the Libyan claims need independent sources because Libyan TV has demonstrated time and time again that it is full of lies. They make shit up out of the top of their heads - there's plenty of documented evidence of this.


The 94 dead figure in Benghazi probably comes from doctors+journalists+aid agencies on the scene, so is far more reliable.

True. But then don't we run the risk in telling ourselves there were far less killed from the missiles, when in reality the truth may have been closer to Libyan numbers? It's like the casualty numbers in Iraq. Some will cite figures of tens of thousands, others hundreds of thousands and some +1million

 

[soepje]

So, care to tell me what valuable natural resource the West fought for when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in 1999?

Well, there is camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. Though somewhat indirect, its still all about the oil imho.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/apr2002/oil-a29.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel

 

[Roude Leiw]

French aircrafts are back in Libya and are destroying tanks.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Well, there is camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. Though somewhat indirect, its still all about the oil imho.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/apr2002/oil-a29.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel

It's not just Bondsteel. USA requested free passage of US armies through Yugoslavia in 1920s (then called The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians) which we refused. Serbia holds a major chunk of passage way between Europe and Asia (called Corridor 10) which was of strategic interest to USA and I believe USA managed to get the passing rights some time ago.

In Bosnia, USA was neutral at the beginning of the conflict and requested all of our airfield bases in Bosnia, which we again refused. After that, USA sided with the other side. They didn't care about civilians, it was up to military bases. This is why military base in Foca, with no Muslims in 30km radius has been granted to Musim/Croat federation, even though it's deep into Serb territory.

 

[Your Excellency]

I'm starting to have issues over this. What is the exit strategy? Is this a humanitarian mission or regime change? We know that unlike with Tunisia, Egypt etc, Gaddafi is actually going to fight to the death now, and so:


1. Will the coalition keep bombing until the rebels win? Once the NFZ is set up, will they get involved in any ground fights between Gaddafi and rebels (ie bombing ground targets)? If this is a humanitarian mission, how can they allow that?

2. Will the coalition try to actively end Gaddafi's rule? Will they bomb Gaddafi's palace in Tripoli? How will that be justified under the solely humanitarian assistance they say they are giving? Going by his other palaces, they have underground bunkers below them that are supposedly capable of withstanding nuclear attacks, and he has many places to hide, so it might not be that easy to take him out.

3. Once he is taken out, what if his sons decide to take charge instead? They've already said this is a fight to the death for all of them.

4. If the coalition doesn't go after Gaddafi...how do we know that Gaddafi's forces won't keep on fighting for months, or years? They have HUGE amounts of financial resources and won't struggle to buy more arms and a never ending stream of mercenaries from african allies. This civil war will go on for years and in the meantime countries like Greece, US, and the UK, all of which have their own financial issues, will see their costs rising to keep up the NFZ.

 

[raphier]

French aircrafts are back in Libya and are destroying tanks.

And Gaddafi has taken the city of Misrata. The center, they say has been under constant heavy artillery pressure and tanks roam in the streets.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

I'm starting to have issues over this. What is the exit strategy? Is this a humanitarian mission or regime change? We know that unlike with Tunisia, Egypt etc, Gaddafi is actually going to fight to the death now, and so:


1. Will the coalition keep bombing until the rebels win? Once the NFZ is set up, will they get involved in any ground fights between Gaddafi and rebels (ie bombing ground targets)? If this is a humanitarian mission, how can they allow that?

2. Will the coalition try to actively end Gaddafi's rule? Will they bomb Gaddafi's palace in Tripoli? How will that be justified under the solely humanitarian assistance they say they are giving? Going by his other palaces, they have underground bunkers below them that are supposedly capable of withstanding nuclear attacks, and he has many places to hide, so it might not be that easy to take him out.

3. Once he is taken out, what if his sons decide to take charge instead? They've already said this is a fight to the death for all of them.

4. If the coalition doesn't go after Gaddafi...how do we know that Gaddafi's forces won't keep on fighting for months, or years? They have HUGE amounts of financial resources and won't struggle to buy more arms and a never ending stream of mercenaries from african allies. This civil war will go on for years and in the meantime countries like Greece, US, and the UK, all of which have their own financial issues, will see their costs rising to keep up the NFZ.

Stop Gadaffi attacks, arm the rebels, take the oil fields or the entire country. Done.

 

[Your Excellency]

True. But then don't we run the risk in telling ourselves there were far less killed from the missiles, when in reality the truth may have been closer to Libyan numbers? It's like the casualty numbers in Iraq. Some will cite figures of tens of thousands, others hundreds of thousands and some +1million

It makes sense to just assess the figures given by reputable media outlets+doctors+aid-agencies in a sensible way, whoever caused the deaths.


Iraqbodycount do a fantastic job of collating their sources so that the same body isn't counted twice, for example. But it's still all over the place. When the Wikileaks details of casualties came out, they used that in addition to their own sources to estimate that there had been about 10,000 deaths which they had not previously known about. That is a HUGE number of previously unknown deaths.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I'm starting to have issues over this. What is the exit strategy? Is this a humanitarian mission or regime change? We know that unlike with Tunisia, Egypt etc, Gaddafi is actually going to fight to the death now, and so:


1. Will the coalition keep bombing until the rebels win? Once the NFZ is set up, will they get involved in any ground fights between Gaddafi and rebels (ie bombing ground targets)? If this is a humanitarian mission, how can they allow that?

2. Will the coalition try to actively end Gaddafi's rule? Will they bomb Gaddafi's palace in Tripoli? How will that be justified under the solely humanitarian assistance they say they are giving? Going by his other palaces, they have underground bunkers below them that are supposedly capable of withstanding nuclear attacks, and he has many places to hide, so it might not be that easy to take him out.

3. Once he is taken out, what if his sons decide to take charge instead? They've already said this is a fight to the death for all of them.

4. If the coalition doesn't go after Gaddafi...how do we know that Gaddafi's forces won't keep on fighting for months, or years? They have HUGE amounts of financial resources and won't struggle to buy more arms and a never ending stream of mercenaries from african allies. This civil war will go on for years and in the meantime countries like Greece, US, and the UK, all of which have their own financial issues, will see their costs rising to keep up the NFZ.

Nobody knows, and its unfortunately one of the questions being ignored by many of media outlets i'm watching. President Obama was quoted as saying this military action may take days, but military leaders have contradicted that - suggesting there is no timetable. Yesterday, the Vice Admiral described these initial attacks as the "initial phase of what will most likely be a multi-phase attack", supporting the theory that they don't know how long they'll be there. Unsurprising because, as you listed, there are no political guarantees that Gadaffi will leave - especially without the UN resolution specifically against a ground invasion.

 

[Souldriver]

Well this thread sure got ugly since last night...

 

[raphier]

I'm starting to have issues over this. What is the exit strategy? Is this a humanitarian mission or regime change? We know that unlike with Tunisia, Egypt etc, Gaddafi is actually going to fight to the death now, and so:


1. Will the coalition keep bombing until the rebels win? Once the NFZ is set up, will they get involved in any ground fights between Gaddafi and rebels (ie bombing ground targets)? If this is a humanitarian mission, how can they allow that?
I believe they will be bombing until one of the forces will take major lead. If Gaddafi wins and he will threaten to kill people who he calls rebels, I see Nato send infantry troops, triggering another large-scale war.
2. Will the coalition try to actively end Gaddafi's rule? Will they bomb Gaddafi's palace in Tripoli? How will that be justified under the solely humanitarian assistance they say they are giving? Going by his other palaces, they have underground bunkers below them that are supposedly capable of withstanding nuclear attacks, and he has many places to hide, so it might not be that easy to take him out.
All it takes to win Gadaffi is to take his cities under rebel control. Forget Gadaffi for now. As long as he has control in troops, you must concentrate on neutralizing his power, before arresting him. he may flee from this.
3. Once he is taken out, what if his sons decide to take charge instead? They've already said this is a fight to the death for all of them.
If Gadaffi loses, his rule will be lost. This means that his sons have no rule, because the reign is gone.
4. If the coalition doesn't go after Gaddafi...how do we know that Gaddafi's forces won't keep on fighting for months, or years? They have HUGE amounts of financial resources and won't struggle to buy more arms and a never ending stream of mercenaries from african allies. This civil war will go on for years and in the meantime countries like Greece, US, and the UK, all of which have their own financial issues, will see their costs rising to keep up the NFZ.

Libya isn't richer than any of your said countries.
This civil war may not take years, because I'd say that most of the cities are on coast and very close to each other. The proximity of the battlefield makes the tides change constantly, thus triggering faster resolution.

 

[Your Excellency]

Stop Gadaffi attacks

So lets say there is a Gaddafi supporter with a rifle who's just shot a rebel. Will the coalition take him out with a missile? And if so, what about the ten thousand other guys? How the FUCK do you stop Gaddafi's attacks when the vast majority of them are from ground-based troops (and many of them plainclothes ones at that)?

arm the rebels

How has that worked out for us in the past? How did it work out for us when we armed the rebels in Afghanistan? They ended up using those very same fucking weapons to kill our soldiers not too long after. Besides, we know that one of the highest ranking people in the rebel army is one of Gaddafi's long term military advisors, hardly the sort of twat we should be giving our grenade launchers to.

take the oil fields and the entire country.

Yeah, the problem with that is is that it is going to dramatically increase the number of moderate muslims who can be coerced into blowing up Universal Studios, Disneyland Paris and Buckingham Palace. So lets NOT do that, yeah?

 

[Roude Leiw]

summary of day 1:
http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/operation-odyssey-dawn-explained/

 

[raphier]

So lets say there is a Gaddafi supporter with a rifle who's just shot a rebel. Will the coalition take him out with a missile? And if so, what about the ten thousand other guys? How the FUCK do you stop Gaddafi's attacks when the vast majority of them are from ground-based troops (and many of them plainclothes ones at that)?

The vast majority comes from artillery and tanks (Targets of UN/Nato). rebels handle infantry themselves.

 

[Xapati]

I'm starting to have issues over this. What is the exit strategy? Is this a humanitarian mission or regime change? We know that unlike with Tunisia, Egypt etc, Gaddafi is actually going to fight to the death now, and so:


1. Will the coalition keep bombing until the rebels win? Once the NFZ is set up, will they get involved in any ground fights between Gaddafi and rebels (ie bombing ground targets)? If this is a humanitarian mission, how can they allow that?

2. Will the coalition try to actively end Gaddafi's rule? Will they bomb Gaddafi's palace in Tripoli? How will that be justified under the solely humanitarian assistance they say they are giving? Going by his other palaces, they have underground bunkers below them that are supposedly capable of withstanding nuclear attacks, and he has many places to hide, so it might not be that easy to take him out.

3. Once he is taken out, what if his sons decide to take charge instead? They've already said this is a fight to the death for all of them.

4. If the coalition doesn't go after Gaddafi...how do we know that Gaddafi's forces won't keep on fighting for months, or years? They have HUGE amounts of financial resources and won't struggle to buy more arms and a never ending stream of mercenaries from african allies. This civil war will go on for years and in the meantime countries like Greece, US, and the UK, all of which have their own financial issues, will see their costs rising to keep up the NFZ.

Yep. I really hope somebody smart thought about this all, because now we have no choice but to continue until Gadaffi is dead or captured.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Yep. I really hope somebody smart thought about this all, because now we have no choice but to continue until Gadaffi is dead or captured.

You can't do either without troops on the ground. The best thing NFZ can accomplish is a ceasefire.

 

[Neo C.]

I'm starting to have issues over this. What is the exit strategy? Is this a humanitarian mission or regime change? We know that unlike with Tunisia, Egypt etc, Gaddafi is actually going to fight to the death now, and so:

I believe Libya will split into two countries at best.

 

[Walshicus]

Just to put it out there - the UN resolution doesn't prohibit boots on the ground. It prohibits occupation. It's very likely Special Forces units are already operating.

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

Just to put it out there - the UN resolution doesn't prohibit boots on the ground. It prohibits occupation. It's very likely Special Forces units are already operating.

Aren't the British SAS on the ground already?

Hundreds of British SAS soldiers have been operating with rebel groups inside Libya for three weeks, the Sunday Mirror can reveal today.

Two special forces units, nicknamed “Smash” teams for their destructive ability, are hunting Colonel Gaddafi’s long-range surface-to-air missile ­systems, which could launch attacks on jets or commercial airliners.

The crack troops have been racing against time to pinpoint the Libyan Army’s most potent strategic weapon, the Russian-made SAM 5 missile systems. Despite their age, the systems have a range of more than 200 miles and the capability to hit targets across the Mediterranean.

The two SAS units, joined by ­signallers, engineers and medics, are simultaneously establishing positions on the ground in case any Western jets are downed during an air attack.

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...s-inside-libya-115875-23002207/#ixzz1H8mcHruA

How reliable is the mirror as a source?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

You can't do either without troops on the ground. The best thing NFZ can accomplish is a ceasefire.

I believe the general idea is to eliminate their airforce (which is basically an unbeatable advantage otherwise) and strike any obvious concentrations of enemy forces and armor. This swings the balance of power in favor of rebel forces.

Aren't the British SAS on the ground already?

It's not like they openly announce that sort of thing. I'd be pretty shocked if there weren't some sort of special operations groups in the country even before the UN resolution.

 

[raphier]

Aren't the British SAS on the ground already?

Yes, but there's a different in providing air forwarding/sabotage and infantry invasion.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

I believe the general idea is to eliminate their airforce (which is basically an unbeatable advantage otherwise) and strike any obvious concentrations of enemy forces and armor. This swings the balance of power in favor of rebel forces.



It's not like they openly announce that sort of thing. I'd be pretty shocked if there weren't some sort of special operations groups in the country even before the UN resolution.

Rebels can't win without heavy ground assitance. Even if NATO breaks Gaddafi's tank formations, Rebels are still only equiped with light vehichles and don't have any tanks. And the support in the people will start dwingling for their cause because the country is being bombed by the West.

 

[[Nintex]]

After all the deals between France and the UK it's starting to look like some sort of test run for the future 'EU army'. I support the current actions but I think it'll go south fast. The Arab league asked for a 'no fly zone' the French and others were just way too motivated to start the mission. Not to mention the 'by all means necessary' phrase in the resolution gives them the green light to do anything. I'm not sure how the EU is going to spin bombing the shit out of Libya as this conflict goes on. If the situation continues to get worse for the Libyans they might not be so happy about the actions taken against Gadaffi if they even supported it in the first place.

 

[Your Excellency]

There are no political guarantees that Gadaffi will leave - especially without the UN resolution specifically against a ground invasion.

Absolutely. Exercising regime change only through air attacks can only be done at the expense of thousands of civilian casualties. The problem then is the fact that those civilians have friends, and relatives, and they will start attacking the West. If I was in that situation and an American jet had killed my wife, brother, baby, and parents, I would do the same: I wouldn't blame Gaddafi for those deaths, but the West.

So they're going to have to put troops on the ground (which is going to be expensive at a time when we can't afford it), and put Western troops in the line of fire...for what reason? How can you say you're putting your troops at risk for humanitarian reasons when there is so much hypocracy in display with regards to the neighbouring countries? It will be very hard to convince people it's entirely humanitarian because of the lack of action in Bahrain, and then the question will arise: is it justified in allowing american and british teenagers to die and be maimed for the sake of securing oil fields?

Alternatively, they arm the rebels and let them take out Gaddafi. But Gaddafi has shitloads of money, and arms, and a long waiting line of willing mercenaries, and bunkers. Fighting him with guns and grenade launchers will be a very long fight. What do we do that whole time: watch, whilst he kills more and more civilians, just keep flying over and watching? NO, because we already got involved for humanitarian reasons, and it wouldn't make sense to just sit back whilst it continued to happen. So what will happen is this: a ground invasion. Paid for by yours truly. Featuring many Western casualties. Many more civilian casualties. And an absolutely positively guaranteed increase in domestic terrorism.

 

[TacticalFox88]

It's funny how a country's sovereignty is not being respected. What business does anyone in the world have invading a country based on some internal strife.

This is pretty big move here i'd say. Did NATO get involved in the Liberian Civil war? or what about current rebellions in South Asia? Did NATO get involved there? No of course they didn't.

A pretty big message was sent here... If your country is setting on valuable resources (like oil) and your country doesn't have the weapons to defend itself or repel a Nato invasion, Your country's national sovereignty means absolutely nothing.

For better or worse, we are truly in the Globalist Age now. The nationalist nations (N. Korea, China, russia) are running on Borrowed time. they are going to be required to submit to the Global order or else.

China and Russia living on borrowed time?? They'll have to follow global order or else? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Whatever makes you sleep at night.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm starting to have issues over this. What is the exit strategy? Is this a humanitarian mission or regime change? We know that unlike with Tunisia, Egypt etc, Gaddafi is actually going to fight to the death now, and so:


1. Will the coalition keep bombing until the rebels win? Once the NFZ is set up, will they get involved in any ground fights between Gaddafi and rebels (ie bombing ground targets)? If this is a humanitarian mission, how can they allow that?

2. Will the coalition try to actively end Gaddafi's rule? Will they bomb Gaddafi's palace in Tripoli? How will that be justified under the solely humanitarian assistance they say they are giving? Going by his other palaces, they have underground bunkers below them that are supposedly capable of withstanding nuclear attacks, and he has many places to hide, so it might not be that easy to take him out.

3. Once he is taken out, what if his sons decide to take charge instead? They've already said this is a fight to the death for all of them.

4. If the coalition doesn't go after Gaddafi...how do we know that Gaddafi's forces won't keep on fighting for months, or years? They have HUGE amounts of financial resources and won't struggle to buy more arms and a never ending stream of mercenaries from african allies. This civil war will go on for years and in the meantime countries like Greece, US, and the UK, all of which have their own financial issues, will see their costs rising to keep up the NFZ.

Sounds like Libya might be Europe's Iraq. And you would be right.

 

[Walshicus]

After all the deals between France and the UK it's starting to look like some sort of test run for the future 'EU army'.

The Anglo-French aspect is interesting. Both states recently began a renewed drive toward greater integration of our militaries - particularly in the naval sphere.

That said we've had over a century of incredibly close alliance between France and Britain.

 

[tHoMNZ]

Are the rebel's the majority? If Libya is fair ground, is Bahrain? Saudi Arabia?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Rebels can't win without heavy ground assitance. Even if NATO breaks Gaddafi's tank formations, Rebels are still only equiped with light vehichles and don't have any tanks. And the support in the people will start dwingling for their cause because the country is being bombed by the West.

Destroying every single loyalist and the entire army isn't required for a victory, all that is required is a surrender. You talk of missile strikes crippling the willingness of the people to support the rebels, but what of its effects on the government loyalists? It's not just their own people they're fighting against, it's the world. Not just in some vague sense of disapproval, they are physically there blowing them away with enormously superior weapons systems.

How long do you think they can actually last when every time they mount any kind of concentrated offensive they're going to be obliterated by an air-strike? The rebels don't need tanks if they have Close Air Support from the United Nations.

 

[[Nintex]]

Are the rebel's the majority? If Libya is fair ground, is Bahrain? Saudi Arabia?

For Sarkozy, Cameron and other trigger happy right wing Europeans yes. But the US will respond with "GTFO with that shit!"

 

[Salazar]

So they're going to have to put troops on the ground (which is going to be expensive at a time when we can't afford it), and put Western troops in the line of fire...for what reason? How can you say you're putting your troops at risk for humanitarian reasons when there is so much hypocracy in display with regards to the neighbouring countries? It will be very hard to convince people it's entirely humanitarian because of the lack of action in Bahrain
.

A sensible variety of humanitarianism understands and involves compromise and pragmatism. You're perfectly entitled to call it hypocrisy, but I am going to take what I can get. At the moment, that is armed resistance to slaughter and the potential removal from power of a bloodthirsty nurk. If you insist on warfare being motivated by pure humanitarianism, you are simply not in the game. People who need to be convinced of the action's "purity" or its imminent replication across the region are almost beyond argument.

 

[StevePharma]

Are the rebel's the majority? If Libya is fair ground, is Bahrain? Saudi Arabia?

No way the US will do anything in Saudi Arabia very soon. They just signed a 40 billion contract for military equipment to them.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

CBS is reporting 3 B-2 bombers dropped 40 bombs on a military airfield.