Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So I'm honestly rather surprised there isn't a thread on this already; so I'm going to start one. What are your thoughts about the current civil war in Libya? Do you support the Transitional National Council? Or Qudaffi? I personally support the ruling government but I would also support a two state solution; however much the thought on an Islamist Libya irks\worries me.
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
There's obviously conflict (), but it doesn't seem to be the nation-wide insurrection that some media outlets are portraying it as. It leads me to believe that the rebels really are the minority, given that they've only barely held on with large amounts of Western support.
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
DeusImperator wrote:So I'm honestly rather surprised there isn't a thread on this already; so I'm going to start one. What are your thoughts about the current civil war in Libya? Do you support the Transitional National Council? Or Qudaffi? I personally support the ruling government but I would also support a two state solution; however much the thought on an Islamist Libya irks\worries me.
What say 'ye?
I don't understand your question. "Do you support the Transitional National Council? Or Qudaffi? I personally support the ruling government but I would also support a two state solution" By this do you mean to say you support Gaddafi? Who is the ruling government? You give two options and then you pick a third that is ambiguous.
Two state solution is a great answer. The UN will then have to babysit the new one from constant Gaddafi attack, much as they are now. Terrible plan.
U.N. just requested more precision strike aircraft form the US. Apparently only our bombs are accurate enough to hit military targets that have been built next to civilian targets. THAT WILL NOT END WELL.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/15 00:39:34
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Ahtman wrote:There is no Libyan situation. We are not at war with Libya, we have always been at war with Eurasia.
We had several posts but it has been a week since the last.
Awesome sauce.
In other news, unemployment is down 3%, oil production by our Libyan allies is up 12%, Shoelace nib production is up 18% and the chocolate milk ration at elementary schools is up 50%. Praise Federal Brother.
I don't understand your question. "Do you support the Transitional National Council? Or Qudaffi? I personally support the ruling government but I would also support a two state solution" By this do you mean to say you support Gaddafi? Who is the ruling government? You give two options and then you pick a third that is ambiguous.
Two state solution is a great answer. The UN will then have to babysit the new one from constant Gaddafi attack, much as they are now. Terrible plan.
U.N. just requested more precision strike aircraft form the US. Apparently only our bombs are accurate enough to hit military targets that have been built next to civilian targets. THAT WILL NOT END WELL.
I apologize for being so unclear. By the ruling government, I mean Gaddafi. Again, what I meant by saying I would accept a binational solution if total victory could not be achieved by either Gadaffi or the TNC.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/15 00:45:43
I apologize for being so unclear. By the ruling government, I mean Gaddafi. Again, what I meant by saying I would accept a binational solution if total victory could not be achieved by either Gadaffi or the TNC.
Really? You support Gaddafi? You are effing with us right?
I personally support the ruling government. I apologize for being so unclear. By the ruling government, I mean Gaddafi.
Really? You support Gaddafi? You are effing with us right?
The majority of Libya seems to support him.
Where are you getting that from? Every article I have read has shown he has a tentative grasp on the people and reality!
Look I am not a supporter of U.S. intervention. I didn't think the U.N. should have bothered with him and I really didn't think the US should have gotten involved. Hell, if G wants to drop bombs on his own people, I don't really care. As long as he kept the oil flowing I really didn't care. Some people call this callous or irresponsible, I don't really care about that either. He had been tame for quite some time and was behaving himself on an international level.
That being said, the U.N. has stepped in and now there are many, many reasons why you should not support Gaddafi remaining in power. This is a man that has shown that he has no problem going after anyone who slights him, and will use any means necessary to take that revenge. If he is allowed to wield power again he will go on a killcrazy rampage through rebel held territory, followed by plots against anyone who supported them including members of the UN and US. Remember Lockerbee. Not to mention how he would change his quiet stance on western powers and the free flow of oil.
Besides that the U.S. has spent almost a billion dollars on this operation (budgeted or not) I would like to believe there was good reason for this.
Maybe you don't know the history of this guy, but you need to do your research.
Besides that the U.S. has spent over a billion dollars on this operation (budgeted or not) I would like to believe there was good reason for this.
Oil, banking interests, construction contracts, military contracts are the reasons that instantly spring to my mind. The Libyan people, if they are any part of the reason at all, I'd imagine are at the bottom of the list on the very last page. Written in the margin. In yellow crayon.
Besides that the U.S. has spent over a billion dollars on this operation (budgeted or not) I would like to believe there was good reason for this.
Oil, banking interests, construction contracts, military contracts are the reasons that instantly spring to my mind. The Libyan people, if they are any part of the reason at all, I'd imagine are at the bottom of the list on the very last page. Written in the margin. In yellow crayon.
All those reasons are all for nothing if Gadaffi gains power again. Or do you think he will just play friendly, get real!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/15 06:50:23
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
It is quite clear that Gaddaffi must go. It is also clear that the UN has decided he must go.
No-one has a clear idea of how to make him go.
Options:
Assassination. I don't think this would be acceptable to anyone, as well as being quite hard to pull off.
Direct military support for the rebels -- i.e. troops on the ground. If good troops could be found, they would roll up Gaddaffi's crappy mercenaries pretty quickly under NATO air support. But it is not part of the UN resolution. Direct support should ideally involve Turkish or Arabic troops rather than European. This could be difficult to arrange.
Continue air operations in support of the rebels until they get themselves better organised and shove Gaddaffi out. Possibly coupled with covert direct support such as weapons and "advisors". This would be an extension of the current operation. I don't know if a new UN resolution would be needed. There is always the option of going without, as we did in Iraq. However, not diplomatically preferred.
Negotiated peace with Gaddaffi resigning his position and given asylum in another country. Buy him off, in other words. This may be difficult as he is a volatile character and may genuinely think he can win, or prefer to go down fighting. The rebels my not want to let him go.
Kilkrazy wrote:It is quite clear that Gaddaffi must go. It is also clear that the UN has decided he must go.
No-one has a clear idea of how to make him go.
Options:
Assassination. I don't think this would be acceptable to anyone, as well as being quite hard to pull off.
Direct military support for the rebels -- i.e. troops on the ground. If good troops could be found, they would roll up Gaddaffi's crappy mercenaries pretty quickly under NATO air support. But it is not part of the UN resolution. Direct support should ideally involve Turkish or Arabic troops rather than European. This could be difficult to arrange.
Continue air operations in support of the rebels until they get themselves better organised and shove Gaddaffi out. Possibly coupled with covert direct support such as weapons and "advisors". This would be an extension of the current operation. I don't know if a new UN resolution would be needed. There is always the option of going without, as we did in Iraq. However, not diplomatically preferred.
Negotiated peace with Gaddaffi resigning his position and given asylum in another country. Buy him off, in other words. This may be difficult as he is a volatile character and may genuinely think he can win, or prefer to go down fighting. The rebels my not want to let him go.
This is the other reason why I said we should not participate! The thing is just a cluster f. There is no clear plan for resolution of situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeusImperator wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
I apologize for being so unclear. By the ruling government, I mean Gaddafi. Again, what I meant by saying I would accept a binational solution if total victory could not be achieved by either Gadaffi or the TNC.
Really? You support Gaddafi? You are effing with us right?
Nope, not even a little bit.
Nope you don't support him, or nope you're not effing with us?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/15 07:20:18
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:Hell, if G wants to drop bombs on his own people, I don't really care. As long as he kept the oil flowing I really didn't care. Some people call this callous or irresponsible, I don't really care about that either.
And to think I considered the recent thread where some people were relishing "not giving a damn" about sweat shop exploitation was a low point.
Andrew1975 wrote:Hell, if G wants to drop bombs on his own people, I don't really care. As long as he kept the oil flowing I really didn't care. Some people call this callous or irresponsible, I don't really care about that either.
And to think I considered the recent thread where some people were relishing "not giving a damn" about sweat shop exploitation was a low point.
Would it help your precious sentimentality if I said, I don't care about G wanting to suppress armed rebel groups and their support centers? I mean, should I really have to spell that part out? It's not like he was sending jets out to just bomb completely random targets throughout Libya in an attempt at population control!
Look, I care on a humanitarian level about life, I just don't think it's the US taxpayers job to provide global security forces and intervene every time there is a civil war someplace. Especially when said intervention appears to have no goal, or at least no way to accomplish that goal.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/04/15 09:00:43
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
@Andrew1975. I'm agreeing with you, dude. I believe that the West's involvement is purely selfish (Oil. Cash. Government rebuilding contracts). I don't think we should be messing with any of it at all. He definitely won't play friendly now that NATO has been bombing him directly. He might play friendly with China or India or Indonesia or Surinam or wherever because they were messing with his gak. I don't think the West would be too quick to drop bombs on Best Korea if a few 1000 people actually got off of their starving duffs to give Kim Jong Il et al a hard time in their own country as China would stop that cold.
Kaddafi, Qaddafi, whatever, was an easy target. They never let a good crisis go to waste if they can get more $carilla or power. Why aren't they messing with Syria? Because Iran and Israel would get involved. Why aren't they kicking ass in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia? They're already on side. Libya was an isolate easy target.
Andrew1975 wrote:Nope you don't support him, or nope you're not effing with us?
I support Gaddafi wholeheartedly. Rebels in arms do not automatically become civilians the moment they die, and if there are actual civilians who are providing aid to the rebels then Gaddafi has a right to wipe them out. I would support a Secularist Gaddafi over an Islamist TNC any day.
As a UN Security Council member, the USA has a treaty obligation to support UN Security Council decisions with treasure, and with force when required.
In other words, it actually is the US taxpayers' job to blah blah blah. Other countries' taxpayers pay too.
Obviously it is best to get involved when there is a good opportunity and goal. The "Arab Spring" presents such opportunities. The reason for getting involved in Libya is that the regime there is much shakier than Syria or Bahrain.
The only reason I'm hesitant about supporting the TNC is that we still have no bloody idea who the hell these guys are. We were discussing Libya in one of my international relations tutorials, and my IR profesor pointed out that back in the 1980s, when we were supplying weapons to the muhjadeen in Afghanistan, we were saying the exact same thing, 'ANYTHING has to be better than the Soviets in charge!' see what happened. Again in Iraq, 2003 'ANYTHING has to be better than Hussein in charge!' once again, we saw how THAT turned out. In 2011, 'ANYTHING has to be better than Gadaffi in charge!' anyone wanna take bets on what's about to happen?
Gadaffi may not be a good leader, and he is indeed a total nutcase running his countryu like Oceania. However, he is, at least, predictable. We don't particulally like Gadaffie, but we know Gadaffi, we understand Gadaffi, and we have something of an understanding with Gadaffi. We do not have any of these with the rebels.
Yes, it may be heartless to stand by and watch civillians be blown up (even though they stopped being civillians when they took up arms, so technically Gadaffi has full legal rights to bomb the living GAK out of them), but the point is...it may be better to let a few rebels get blown up, than to let something worse happen, like with the sweatshops, the current situation is abd, but the alternative could be even worse. The status quo before the rebellion was relatively stable, and stability is a good thing, even if the price is a few human lives.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/04/15 11:21:09
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
I support Gadaffi because the rebels are merely poor dupes that Al Qaeda have poisoned with mind-bending drugs.
Yeah.
Anyway, that stupid-arse propaganda aside... I actually hold the rebels on good faith, unlike in Egypt where the main opposition pretty much is the Muslim Brotherhood.
I think the Libyans have enjoyed a reasonable quality of life under a secular state and genuinely have absorbed those values; now they simply crave democracy.
Although I am pro-intervention I have to say this whole "no-fly zone" business has to stop, simply because it's blatant lying on our part... Why?
'Cos, Nato... Tanks can't fly and I refuse to believe that all those we've destroyed were caught mid-air after doing some sick-ass ramp jumps.
DeusImperator wrote:So I'm honestly rather surprised there isn't a thread on this already; so I'm going to start one. What are your thoughts about the current civil war in Libya? Do you support the Transitional National Council? Or Qudaffi? I personally support the ruling government but I would also support a two state solution; however much the thought on an Islamist Libya irks\worries me.
What say 'ye?
Because of how this has been handled:
1. Oil is ~$15 higher than it should be under current factors
2. Instead of being resolved by now, the civil continues and is already more bloody than what would have occured.
3. Now everyone is stuck in a major ongoing gak storm.
Smooth move guys.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/15 12:11:51
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I personally support the ruling government. I apologize for being so unclear. By the ruling government, I mean Gaddafi.
Really? You support Gaddafi? You are effing with us right?
The majority of Libya seems to support him.
Where are you getting that from? Every article I have read has shown he has a tentative grasp on the people and reality!
Look I am not a supporter of U.S. intervention. I didn't think the U.N. should have bothered with him and I really didn't think the US should have gotten involved. Hell, if G wants to drop bombs on his own people, I don't really care. As long as he kept the oil flowing I really didn't care. Some people call this callous or irresponsible, I don't really care about that either. He had been tame for quite some time and was behaving himself on an international level.
That being said, the U.N. has stepped in and now there are many, many reasons why you should not support Gaddafi remaining in power. This is a man that has shown that he has no problem going after anyone who slights him, and will use any means necessary to take that revenge. If he is allowed to wield power again he will go on a killcrazy rampage through rebel held territory, followed by plots against anyone who supported them including members of the UN and US. Remember Lockerbee. Not to mention how he would change his quiet stance on western powers and the free flow of oil.
Besides that the U.S. has spent almost a billion dollars on this operation (budgeted or not) I would like to believe there was good reason for this.
Maybe you don't know the history of this guy, but you need to do your research.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW, legally this is correct (if the person being hugged does not consent).
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
I'm not getting into this again!
Edit: Changed over a billion to almost a billion. It's actually $600 mil in unscheduled military spending, plus the cost of SOP.
For someone who only has a tangential hold he seems to be doing an excellent job. Despite US er NATO yea NATO bombing he's recaptured just about everything and is not bombarding the remaining rebel areas. His opposition is not coherent in its capabilities. This is a tribal fight gone bad and now exasperated by the intervention. More people will die because of it than if it had not occurred. But thats ok because France meant well (ok it didn't it was protecting Total) oh well...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Khornholio wrote:@Andrew1975. I'm agreeing with you, dude. I believe that the West's involvement is purely selfish (Oil. Cash. Government rebuilding contracts). I don't think we should be messing with any of it at all. He definitely won't play friendly now that NATO has been bombing him directly. He might play friendly with China or India or Indonesia or Surinam or wherever because they were messing with his gak. I don't think the West would be too quick to drop bombs on Best Korea if a few 1000 people actually got off of their starving duffs to give Kim Jong Il et al a hard time in their own country as China would stop that cold.
Kaddafi, Qaddafi, whatever, was an easy target. They never let a good crisis go to waste if they can get more $carilla or power. Why aren't they messing with Syria? Because Iran and Israel would get involved. Why aren't they kicking ass in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia? They're already on side. Libya was an isolate easy target.
Agreed on all points. Its like watching Bush post initial success in Afghanistan. They are cluster ing the whole thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/15 11:27:18
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Kilkrazy wrote:
As a UN Security Council member, the USA has a treaty obligation to support UN Security Council decisions with treasure, and with force when required.
In other words, it actually is the US taxpayers' job to blah blah blah. Other countries' taxpayers pay too.
Obviously it is best to get involved when there is a good opportunity and goal. The "Arab Spring" presents such opportunities. The reason for getting involved in Libya is that the regime there is much shakier than Syria or Bahrain.
Please find me the clause in the UN charter where the US has to commit a damn thing. If so the other 180ish members are also violating it. Where is Brazil's awesome Samba army?
Now that I think about Brazil would be perfect in this situation. The average trooper/rebel/civilian would just lose it and run home screaming if this came rocking down the road.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
DeusImperator wrote:So I'm honestly rather surprised there isn't a thread on this already; so I'm going to start one. What are your thoughts about the current civil war in Libya? Do you support the Transitional National Council? Or Qudaffi? I personally support the ruling government but I would also support a two state solution; however much the thought on an Islamist Libya irks\worries me.
What say 'ye?
Because of how this has been handled:
1. Oil is ~$15 higher than it should be under current factors
2. Instead of being resolved by now, the civil continues and is already more bloody than what would have occured.
3. Now everyone is stuck in a major ongoing shitstorm.
Smooth move guys.
It's because they've only done half a job, the rebels aren't is a position to take advantage of the damage done to Gadaffi's forces. We should have supplied them with arms straight away.
The difficulty of course is the fear that those weapons would then end up in terrorist hands. Evidently this has occurred before. I know there are instances where those valiant fighters/drug dealers/white slavers that we supported in Kosova ended up fighting us with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
But yea, if you're going to do it, you do it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/15 11:46:35
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Pro Deus Imperatorhttp:
), but it doesn't seem to be the nation-wide insurrection that some media outlets are portraying it as. It leads me to believe that the rebels really are the minority, given that they've only barely held on with large amounts of Western support.
707th Lubyan Aquila Banner Motor Rifle Regiment (6000 pts)
Battlefleet Tomania (2500 pts)
ing the whole thing.
