The Libya Crisis (military intervention started on march 19, 2011)

[WordShaker]

Instead of a thug, we're going to get a scoundrel. Hats off for foreign military aggression!

I've grown wary of any military intervention anywhere by the US or any of the major international powers. Though I've no love for Gaddafi, pouring UN forces into Libya doesn't bode well for the crisis in Africa and the Middle East. Like others have said, the intervention in Libya is based on oil politics rather than any real humanitarian concerns and looks like little more than setting up for another string of US-and-West-friendly autocratic states.

[FlavorOfLife]

The problem with the entire air space lock down is that it is no longer just airspace.

Killing AA defenses is fine when you're about to be going in for an operation.

Blowing up a building in the capital with a cruise missile when you're not executing airspace operations in the vicinity is asking to be hit with a backlash.

Then there is the problem of attacking ground troops. This is a no fly zone enforcement. This means anti-aircraft ops. Attacking ground forces with at best a flimsy excuse of "they have mobile AA" is bloody obvious especially since mobile AA is so weak.

Now its obvious that they are choosing to support the rebels rather than just maintain a no fly zone so the 2 sides can duke it out. Because of this, the Arabs (who hushed it up quickly), the Russians (who also hushed it up) and Chinese are understandably pissed off. It has exceeded what was perceived as the UN mandate.

Of course, the language "utilise all means" allows an excuse to continue hiding behind the UN mandate but i doubt Russia and China would not have vetoed the entuire thing if they had not been pacified with some reassurances. The results for the 3 sides is kind of like talking to Kyubei then finding out the facts later

[Dhomochevsky]

The whole idea of this engagement is to support the rebel forces, so Gaddafi can not retake the east of Lybia.
That is not a hidden agenda, so I don't see why this should be a problem.

A no fly zone, so planes can not bomb civilians, but if tanks/artillery do it, that would be ok? Why would the UN chose something like that? I do not believe anyone was expecting that.

The goal is clearly to get rid of Gaddafi. The reason the UN promised "no gound troops" is the fear in the mid east, that if you get western military forces into your land, they will not leave again and you will lose control of your own country. They did need support though, or it would've been over in a couple of days.
So this is a compromise.

At best, it will enable the rebels to overthrow Gaddafi themselves. At worst it will divide the country.

[Kyero Fox]

Man I feel so lazy when I read this thread, lazy because I never look into it

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

What of their involvement in the UN? I've heard (from an admittedly questionable source) that they voted against US and European armed military intervention in Libya because of their interests in the oil there, which wouldn't be surprising.

You mean by vote or by contribution?

As far as I know, China hasn't done anything since its appearance in UN. Russia had done quite a number of humanitarian contributions though.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

You mean by vote or by contribution?

As far as I know, China hasn't done anything since its appearance in UN. Russia had done quite a number of humanitarian contributions though.

Nah, I meant mostly in terms of what is happening now but Frenchie answered for me. Thanks

[FlavorOfLife]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

The whole idea of this engagement is to support the rebel forces, so Gaddafi can not retake the east of Lybia.
That is not a hidden agenda, so I don't see why this should be a problem.

No the entire idea was to prevent the one sided advantage of airspace superiority especially given the number of bombing incidents vs civilians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...esolution_1973

There is a big difference between non-combatants (civilians) and combatants (rebels and govt forces). The resolution never gives any weight to supporting one side just protecting the non-combatants.

To the UN this should be a civil war only which is also very likely the reason why Russia, China and India abstained rather than vetoing it outright (and also due to the Arab League supporting a no fly zone, giving it legitmacy).

If the current EU/US forces in the area are using the clause of "all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas" then they must also be willing to defend the Gaddfi held cities and towns when the rebels advance else seen to overstep the UN resolution in favor of the rebels.

All this would have been avoided if they simply stuck to the approved resolution and let the 2 sides fight it out (which the rebels were already winning until the air superority and imported mercenaries affected the result both of which the resolution blocked).

The root problem the Arabs, Russia, China and probably India have with it is that it sets precedence (next time enforcing a no fly zone means the UN goes in for one side of the conflict rather than just a non-fly zone?). By overstepping, they have also reduced further chances of non-vetos happening.

[cyth]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...eedom-packages

I will just leave this here.

[GundamFan0083]

I dislike Kadafi.
He's a dictator, of the old Stalinistic variety.

However, this President (Obama) made it a point during the 2008 Pres campaign to tell Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe that the President should ask congress for approval before any military action is taken.
Obama did not do that.

Our relations with Russia are now strained over this and China isn't very happy about it either.

The reason for this is clear.
The UN resolution was for a "no-fly zone" and yet American and European powers are now mobilizing ground forces for what seems like an inevitable invasion of Libya.
Many countries are against this.

The "no-fly" zone had unilateral consent by the UN security council, but an Iraq style invasion does not.

This is straight up Imperialism, and that's something we in the USA cannot afford.

I take George Washington's point of view on these aggressive incursions the USA takes due to NATO or European influence:

"Beware of entangling alliances."

This whole Libyian situation is already becoming FUBAR.

[delirium]

I can't help but agree with you, GundamFan0083. We're still fighting in Iraq & Afghanistan, and now we're putting troops and forces in Libya? I actually think it's insane, but what can be done about this? We should beware entangling alliances, but those European forces are our allies. I think it's awfully hypocritical that they were opposed to Iraq/Afghanistan, but it's cool to invade Libya because their oil supply is being threatened.

That's not enough justification to invade for me. The US should have been awesome and tried mediating a peaceful solution, as crazy as that sounds when our military is occupying two sovereign countries.

[Dhomochevsky]

A US F-15E crashed near Benghasi. The crew is said to be unharmed.

Now I wonder what would happen if aircrafts go down somewhere over hostile areas. Would ground troops be sent to rescue those pilots?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

A US F-15E crashed near Benghasi. The crew is said to be unharmed.

Now I wonder what would happen if aircrafts go down somewhere over hostile areas. Would ground troops be sent to rescue those pilots?

Given the know forces of the allied, I would guess than heliported troups ( more likely some US Marine ) would be send for searching and extracting them .

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I dislike Kadafi.
He's a dictator, of the old Stalinistic variety.

However, this President (Obama) made it a point during the 2008 Pres campaign to tell Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe that the President should ask congress for approval before any military action is taken.
Obama did not do that.

Our relations with Russia are now strained over this and China isn't very happy about it either.

The reason for this is clear.
The UN resolution was for a "no-fly zone" and yet American and European powers are now mobilizing ground forces for what seems like an inevitable invasion of Libya.
Many countries are against this.

The "no-fly" zone had unilateral consent by the UN security council, but an Iraq style invasion does not.

This is straight up Imperialism, and that's something we in the USA cannot afford.

I take George Washington's point of view on these aggressive incursions the USA takes due to NATO or European influence:

"Beware of entangling alliances."

This whole Libyian situation is already becoming FUBAR.

It's China and Russia that worry me, particularly if they're against military involvement in Libya. Indeed, a no fly zone doesn't mean sending ground forces to Libya in order to carry out another "Operation Freedom," especially when they don't know what will happen to the people when Gheddafi takes the tumble, if that happens. As I said, they know their enemy, but they don't know who their friend is.

This could easily turn into another Iraq. But the worst of it is if China and Russia decide to send their troops in to oppose US and EU forces, which would destroy Libya as we know it and maybe trigger WW3. It's definitely Imperialism on the US's side if they still think they can send their forces anywhere believing they can fix anything, and sending their troops to Libya is proof enough.

[delirium]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

It's definitely Imperialism on the US's side if they still think they can send their forces anywhere believing they can fix anything, and sending their troops to Libya is proof enough.

I'm horrified at the number of people who think the USA started this affair in Libya! It wasn't! We're there to support our allies who are invading due to the fact that their oil supply is threatened. What else am I supposed to say? Don't make us the scapegoat of this mess, please.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by delirium

I'm horrified at the number of people who think the USA started this affair in Libya! It wasn't! We're there to support our allies who are invading due to the fact that their oil supply is threatened. What else am I supposed to say? Don't make us the scapegoat of this mess, please.

I'm not at all saying that the US started it. I know full well that the whole mess started because of the mideast revolution. What I don't agree with is the US stepping in to take this chance and spread its brand of democracy will the EU worries more about the oil.

[Solafighter]

Novel AAA..

Spoiler for photo:

Fighting a war from an office chair.

Spoiler for photo:

[Xagzan]

It's like Jon Stewart said, "You can't simultaneously fire teachers and Tomahawk missiles."

As expected, the warmongers conveniently forget about any deficit they always rant about when there's oil involved.

[delirium]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

I'm not at all saying that the US started it. I know full well that the whole mess started because of the mideast revolution. What I don't agree with is the US stepping in to take this chance and spread its brand of democracy will the EU worries more about the oil.

Don't give us this shit about US imperialism if you know we didn't start it. We're not looking to spread our brand of democracy to Libya. You don't know what our military or government is planning, so all you're doing is assuming and it makes me furious. Do you know how much shit we got for going into Iraq & Afghanistan? The situation then is the same as it is in Libya right now. Saddam had killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia Muslims over the past few decades, while we should have taken him out 20 years ago, the fact remains that the Taliban & Saddam Hussein were as bad as Libya is today. And we were bashed for it then, but now Europe has their oil supply threatened, and it's fucking okay to invade for that reason. It's different that it is European countries taking the lead, right? LOL.

I'm just tired of hearing anti-American bullshit. Can't I be proud of my country for at least a few years? We're fucked no matter what we do. We don't invade, we're bad! We invade? We're bad! Fuck it.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by cyth

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...eedom-packages

I will just leave this here.

This isn't just funny but true satire. It's fucking legendary.

Originally Posted by delirium

I'm horrified at the number of people who think the USA started this affair in Libya! It wasn't! We're there to support our allies who are invading due to the fact that their oil supply is threatened. What else am I supposed to say? Don't make us the scapegoat of this mess, please.

Support them!? The US is completely stretched thin despite the absolutely massive amount of money spent that is their defense budget. Crunch the numbers. America spends more money on defense than the next TWENTY COUNTRIES COMBINED. And for what? Is the world truly any better now than when the US became controlled by its own military industrial complex? It isn't even politics by other means anymore, modern warfare is pure business.

We don't engage Iran when they massacre civilians. We don't rush to Bahrain when they peaceably protest and get killed. We were so damn ambiguous about Egypt we may as well have been talking about any number countries. We're fighting a pointless battle in Afghanistan. Iraq isn't much better off than it was when we started that war. And now, now of all times we're getting involved with Libya?

This is nothing more than a coalition of powers deciding to take advantage of an opportunistic situation to remove someone they don't like so they can put someone they do in power. It has nothing to do with the people, or democracy, or anything like that.

The entire world is falling apart because the elite of this world simply do not give a shit about anything except their precious power and money, no matter how fragile and fleeting it is. The entire species is on the verge of yet another freaking World War because even in the most "prosperous" of nations the populations are tired of giving more and more and seeing less and less, while everything they've worked so hard for over generations is pissed away by systems that have been perverted into a musical chairs game of business and government.

Sooner or later, this shit's got to go.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I dislike Kadafi.
He's a dictator, of the old Stalinistic variety.

However, this President (Obama) made it a point during the 2008 Pres campaign to tell Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe that the President should ask congress for approval before any military action is taken.
Obama did not do that.

Well, yes but he got the nobel peace price. And now he is going to bring them peace. ~ Dark Angel ~ I come in peace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzcgJLOSojc

Now I think the problem is rather simple, the nations who are most dependend on the oil cannot wait till kingdom come and oil prizes stabilize. This is also why China did not veto and is rather set back with their criticism. This is in accordance with the chinese foreign policy, people don't matter but stability and low raw material prizes.
The western nations are not much better, they just use a pretext which most of their own people actually believe in (because of clever manipulation using media and teaching a twisted version of liberationism).
Well, Russia's intentions in all of this is not really clear to me, they have no advantage as an oil/gas exporting country from this war, maybe they know western nations will even more thin out their powers when they are engaged in this "no fly zone" operation. So, it could have strategic value for them. India, Brazil and Germany just don't want to get dirty fingers, and certainly benefit from the situation more without being engaged in it.
Its all politics/economics, if you can find some humanist ideals/motives in all of this... well everybody lives in his own version of this world.
Now I don't think president Obama is stupid. He would not have been able to withstand a GOP campaign for this no fly zone anyway, it would have actually cost him many political points. So rather than fighting against windmills he at least decided to make it as quick as possible, and hopefully people will soon forget. (of course thats just my interpretation and there is a good chance that I am wrong)