PDA

View Full Version : Battle for Benghazi


Ztalker
03-19-2011, 12:32 PM
Linkie (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1)

In the pas weeks, Kadaffi has been casually murdering hundreds (thousands?) of his own people. His own people, who want freedom.

Ironically, the French show they have brass ba...ehm...and have sent their fighter jets in advance of the main group (U.S., Canda, UK) to defend the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. As we speak, they have already destroyed several of Kadaffi's tanks and the involvement of the U.N. is official.

And face it; Battle for Benghazi sounds cool.

Astor
03-19-2011, 12:41 PM
This should probably be in Kavars....

That said, well done to the Armée de l'Air. I honestly think the French reputation for cowardice is completely unwarranted, and their actions show the critics of the UK and the US that it isn't another Iraq style adventure (it's legal, for a start).

The US Navy is reportedly gearing up to launch missiles at installations later today, in addition to blockading Libya by sea, and the RAF, RCAF and Danish fighters are en route to bases within striking distance. I only hope Gaddafi has the sense (unlikely) to realise that the UN and NATO aren't likely to back down as easily as he pushed back the rebels.

mimartin
03-19-2011, 03:01 PM
This should probably be in Kavars.....

*looks around*

This looks like Kavars to me. :dev14:

Jae Onasi
03-19-2011, 06:19 PM
Yes, US subs and aircraft characters fully support the 2 French aircraft from the entire L'Armee de l'Aire. :xp:

Seriously, Qadhafi needs to go. Hopefully the coalition will be able to limit the bloodshed.

Totenkopf
03-19-2011, 06:25 PM
Airpower is nice, but troops on the ground (regardless of where they come from) are likely to be the only thing short of a "lucky" stray bomb/s to put an end to Qaddafi and his regime.

This looks like Kavars to me. :dev14:

Quite so. o_Q

Astor
03-19-2011, 06:33 PM
Yes, US subs and aircraft characters fully support the 2 French aircraft from the entire L'Armee de l'Aire.

Seriously, though, the French should be commended for going in and taking out ground targets before the air defence had been taken down. It certainly shows that they meant business.

Airpower is nice, but troops on the ground (regardless of where they come from) are likely to be the only thing short of a "lucky" stray bomb/s to put an end to Qaddafi and his regime.

A lot of news pundits here have commented on how President Obama and Mrs. Clinton have been keen to stress that no American troops would be deployed.

And while the resolution prohibits ground forces, and seeing as they seem to be the driving force for the moment, the French Foreign Legion is never far away in Africa... :ninja2:

Totenkopf
03-19-2011, 06:43 PM
Seriously, though, the French should be commended for going in and taking out ground targets before the air defence had been taken down. It certainly shows that they meant business.

Probably a bit harder than taking out Ivory Coast's pitiful air force a number of years ago.



A lot of news pundits here have commented on how President Obama and Mrs. Clinton have been keen to stress that no American troops would be deployed.

And while the resolution prohibits ground forces, and seeing as they seem to be the driving force for the moment, the French Foreign Legion is never far away in Africa... :ninja2:

I'd be quite fine w/the FFL and the Arab League/African nations providing the ground muscle. America doesn't always have to provide the cannon fodder.

Sabretooth
03-19-2011, 10:34 PM
Arab League and Africans fighting on the Anti-Qadaffi side... now that's irony.

Lord of Hunger
03-19-2011, 10:45 PM
Why call it a No-Fly Zone when they're in all reality wiping out all of Gaddafi's forces minus infantry?

In all honesty though, kudos to the UN for getting its balls back. This speed and seriousness is highly unusual for them and deserves a round of applause.

Now...if only we could do the same thing here with North Korea....

Sabretooth
03-19-2011, 10:52 PM
Here's the full resolution, the one that's colloquially being called the No-Fly Zone.

The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:

demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
imposes a no-fly zone over Libya;
authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force";
strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes;
imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights;
imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people;
extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities;
establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation.


Now...if only we could do the same thing here with North Korea....
You'll have to wait till Kim starts lobbing missiles and fighter-strafing his own people. And then deal with one of the world's largest armed forces.

Lord of Hunger
03-20-2011, 01:00 AM
You'll have to wait till Kim starts lobbing missiles and fighter-strafing his own people. And then deal with one of the world's largest armed forces.
Well the South Korean people are Koreans so in technicality when he bombarded that island a few months ago he attacked his own people.

As for one of the world's largest armed forces, he might have a lot of people. The US, on the other hand, has a lot more cruise missiles. If it wasn't for North Korea being China's puppy dog the US could have had Jong-Ill's regime in the garbage can at every moment since the Korean War, including now. I wish there was something we could just give the Chinese so they'd stop protecting North Korea.

Admittedly North Korea does have their own missiles and supposedly nukes so they could make it sting...provided they had time to launch them and they weren't shot down by brave men and women in the armed forces....

Sabretooth
03-20-2011, 01:24 AM
Well the South Korean people are Koreans so in technicality when he bombarded that island a few months ago he attacked his own people.
...who are not part of his government and nation, so no, they're not his "own" people anymore.

As for one of the world's largest armed forces, he might have a lot of people. The US, on the other hand, has a lot more cruise missiles. If it wasn't for North Korea being China's puppy dog the US could have had Jong-Ill's regime in the garbage can at every moment since the Korean War, including now.
Like how America put Saddam and the Taliban in the garbage can and restored peace and stability there? :D

Lord of Hunger
03-20-2011, 02:36 AM
...who are not part of his government and nation, so no, they're not his "own" people anymore.
Except he claims them as his own in the same way Gaddafi claims the rebels in Benghazi.
Like how America put Saddam and the Taliban in the garbage can and restored peace and stability there? :D
In the case of Saddam, we did put him the garbage can. We had peace in Iraq until Al-Qaeda came in large numbers and triggered mass sectarian violence. When we got our *** in gear and made the troop surge, peace was restored.

As for the Taliban, we could wipe them out right now if Pakistan would let us invade the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan for them. That's the only real reason why the Taliban even exist. They keep having to bring in more people from the east into Afghanistan to cause trouble.

Astor
03-20-2011, 06:49 AM
Except he claims them as his own in the same way Gaddafi claims the rebels in Benghazi.

Not really... Gaddafi has been claiming for weeks now that the rebels are foreign fighters from Al Qaeda and the Islamic Brotherhood.

Liverandbacon
03-20-2011, 05:05 PM
I have little experience with French civilians, but their military does not deserve a reputation of cowardice. Quite the opposite in fact.

Gaddafi deserves to be gone, but it'll probably take boots on the ground to remove him fully. Glad the US isn't supplying them though, we'd just get blamed for any problems. Again. Of course, people will complain now (maybe not here, but IRL), saying the US should send troops. We can't win with some people.

Also... it's only ok to topple a dictator who's slaughtering his people once an internal rebellion has been launched? If people are dying without a fight, it's wrong to help them? Trying hard here to see how the UN sees this as any different from Iraq.

N.B: I was actually against the war in Iraq starting (though once it started, fully in favor of following through and finishing it), for the following reasons:
A: We were already in A-stan (why add another front?)
B: It would make everyone expect us to eliminate dictators they should get rid of themselves, and blame us if it didn't go as planned.
C: The average US citizen now lacks the necessary grit to get the country through a double (perhaps even single) war, despite the fact that it affects their daily lives less than any previous war in our history. Sadly those of us who are actually directly involved in the war are easily drowned out by the whining of the masses.

Apologies if this came off a bit rant-ish, I'm recovering from surgery, and lack of physical activity has turned me more irritable than usual.

Lord of Hunger
03-21-2011, 02:07 AM
Not really... Gaddafi has been claiming for weeks now that the rebels are foreign fighters from Al Qaeda and the Islamic Brotherhood.
Wait, wasn't it that they were being drugged by foreign fighters?

Astor
03-21-2011, 05:16 AM
Wait, wasn't it that they were being drugged by foreign fighters?

It seems to be all of them - it evolves with each new broadcast. Originally it was hallucinating foreign drug pushers, and now it's drug dealers, Islamic militants and CIA instigators.

Anything but ordinary Libyans who've had enough, it seems.

Primogen
03-21-2011, 05:36 PM
Of course the French reputation for cowardice isn't earned. I thought everyone already knew it was a joke.

I figure next time Gaddafi makes a broadcast, it'll be that the rebels are being lead by a charismatic parasite called a Goa'uld.

ForeverNight
03-21-2011, 09:02 PM
Been watching this on Al-Jazeera along with a few others on IRC, interesting happenings. As for Goa'uld, I'd expect him to mention something along the lines of Scientology before outright Star Gate :P

And I was always of the opinion that most everybody figured the whole French thing was a joke :<

Ztalker
03-22-2011, 04:39 PM
Of course the French reputation for cowardice isn't earned. I thought everyone already knew it was a joke.

I figure next time Gaddafi makes a broadcast, it'll be that the rebels are being lead by a charismatic parasite called a Goa'uld.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRV2Wcwnn-mWCqHLq8QnRa3Mj-JHQGqaCcQ-Z6T-qRvm7uZQWKW&t=1

Tommycat
03-22-2011, 08:55 PM
Actually I'm waiting to hear him say that they are infected with Charlie Sheen's blood.

WINNING!

VeniVidiVicous
03-22-2011, 11:56 PM
Well I feel obliged as a European to say that this primarily about oil and not the people in Libya., the fact that Sarkozy owes Gaddafi money also comes into frances willingness to get involved imo.

I mean there's other places in Africa who need military assistance far more than Libya but these countries aren't sitting on oil so go figure.

Don't take this as a pro-gaddafi post btw i'm just fed up of seeing the US invading other countries.

Primogen
03-22-2011, 11:59 PM
Actually, we aren't invading. No Coalition troops are putting their boots on Libyan soil, we're just bombing them back to the stone age. Also, the United States is just one member in a sizable coalition.

Darth Avlectus
03-23-2011, 02:51 AM
I'm a little skeptical as Ghaddafi did comply with the no-nukes treaty and even bit the bullet with sanctions. Why exactly would someone, otherwise compliant with the international scene, participate in brutality? It just doesn't make sense to me. :raise:

I have little experience with French civilians, but their military does not deserve a reputation of cowardice. Quite the opposite in fact.

Hey, their fencers have some of the best techniques. Right up there with portugese, spaniards, italians, and germans. Besides, Andre the Giant was born in the french alps. There would not have been a Hulk Hogan nor a Vince McMahon if there hadn't been an Andre the Giant.

Besides we both know a certain lady who speaks french, though she speaks English to us. :dev9:

Working Class Hero
03-23-2011, 03:57 AM
It's cool that the US is now at war with at least 3 nations, all of them without first being declared by congress.

Primogen
03-23-2011, 04:17 AM
Does it count as a war when they're equipped with little more than 40-year old Soviet tech and put up about as much of a fight as the things I found in my toilet yesterday?

Astor
03-23-2011, 05:25 AM
Well I feel obliged as a European to say that this primarily about oil and not the people in Libya., the fact that Sarkozy owes Gaddafi money also comes into frances willingness to get involved imo.

If this were solely about Oil, we wouldn't be attacking Gaddafi - we'd more than likely be continuing our business deals with him.

I mean there's other places in Africa who need military assistance far more than Libya but these countries aren't sitting on oil so go figure.

As has been pointed out, the Libyan people asked for intervention - as far as I'm aware no other countries have asked the international community for assistance in such a manner.

Besides, is it not right that we rid the world of a man who has killed not only hundreds of his own people, but hundreds of US, UK and other citizens? And even armed terrorist groups, allowing them to kill even more people?

Don't take this as a pro-gaddafi post btw i'm just fed up of seeing the US invading other countries.

The French were the first to suggest a NFZ, and indeed the only country so far to recognise the Libyan Transitional Council as the legitimate government of Libya, so it's arguably their lead on this.

And it's not an invasion. It's humanitarian intervention. With cruise missiles. :p

I'm a little skeptical as Ghaddafi did comply with the no-nukes treaty and even bit the bullet with sanctions. Why exactly would someone, otherwise compliant with the international scene, participate in brutality? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Leopards find it very difficult to change their spots, no matter how hard they seem to be trying.

Working Class Hero
03-23-2011, 06:12 AM
Does it count as a war when they're equipped with little more than 40-year old Soviet tech and put up about as much of a fight as the things I found in my toilet yesterday?Good point. I suppose this is just shelling practice for our troops...can't get rusty, they must be ready to blow up the next nation for
oil. :thmbup1:

Primogen
03-23-2011, 07:16 AM
Hey, I resent that implication. If we blow up the whole nation, we might damage our ability to get at the oil.

Totenkopf
03-23-2011, 11:14 AM
Good point. I suppose this is just shelling practice for our troops...can't get rusty, they must be ready to blow up the next nation for
oil. :thmbup1:

Well, you could always offer yourself up as fodder, er I mean help, to those countries that fall through the cracks (Sudan, etc...). Right up there in the tradition of the Lafayette Escadrille, Flying Tigers and Eagle Squadrons of the 20th century. ;)

Sabretooth
03-23-2011, 11:54 AM
It's cool that the US is now at war with at least 3 nations, all of them without first being declared by congress.

I'm not sure if this one can be called a war just yet; so far it's an uprising with a UN intervention in it.

I'm a little skeptical as Ghaddafi did comply with the no-nukes treaty and even bit the bullet with sanctions. Why exactly would someone, otherwise compliant with the international scene, participate in brutality? It just doesn't make sense to me. :raise:

Think husbands who engage in domestic violence.

Well I feel obliged as a European to say that this primarily about oil and not the people in Libya., the fact that Sarkozy owes Gaddafi money also comes into frances willingness to get involved imo.
While it seems to be safe thing to say, I'm not entirely sure how this will work, since no UN troops will setting foot on Libyan soil (unless they eject or crash).

I mean there's other places in Africa who need military assistance far more than Libya but these countries aren't sitting on oil so go figure.
I honestly can't think of an African country that has more need of military assistance than Libya at the moment. I'd really prefer to hear that the UN is stepping into Libya than to hear that Libyans are getting slaughtered by Qaddafi while their calls for help are falling on deaf ears.

Don't take this as a pro-gaddafi post btw i'm just fed up of seeing the US invading other countries.
As has been mentioned before, this is neither US-led nor an invasion.

Yet.

Liverandbacon
03-23-2011, 01:54 PM
As has been mentioned before, this is neither US-led nor an invasion

But we are #1 Overlord of the West?!?! No other countries get involved in the affairs of other nations right?! :confused:

Good point. I suppose this is just shelling practice for our troops...can't get rusty, they must be ready to blow up the next nation for
oil. :thmbup1:

Though generally even a relatively unfriendly stable nation is easier to trade with than an unstable one... 'War for Oil' is a silly concept. Nations have ulterior motives for humanitarian intervention (they'd be fools not to), but they're a bit more complex than that.

Hey, their fencers have some of the best techniques. Right up there with portugese, spaniards, italians, and germans. Besides, Andre the Giant was born in the french alps. There would not have been a Hulk Hogan nor a Vince McMahon if there hadn't been an Andre the Giant.

Besides we both know a certain lady who speaks french, though she speaks English to us. :dev9:

I wasn't casting any doubt on the bravery of French civilians, merely stating that I don't know enough of them to make a judgement. I've met French soldiers that are among the bravest men I've ever met.

French Canadians, such as the lady in question, are cool in my book. Any culture that has the vision to invent the combination of fries, cheese curds, and gravy is one worthy of respect.

Tommycat
03-23-2011, 02:32 PM
As has been mentioned before, this is neither US-led nor an invasion.

Yet.
Yeah, I was looking at that one with my eyes all crooked... I was thinking to myself, "Self... Why would VVV call it a US led invasion when it was the French who led the way, under a UN mandate, and no soldiers are actually invading?"

The response was
"I.. it's simple. Anytime the US is involved it has to be US led. And the missiles are the invaders... I guess..."

Darth Avlectus
03-23-2011, 07:11 PM
@ astor/saber: So essentially what you're saying is once a predator/wifebeater, always a predator/wifebeater?



I wasn't casting any doubt on the bravery of French civilians, merely stating that I don't know enough of them to make a judgement. I've met French soldiers that are among the bravest men I've ever met. I was actually agreeing with you. :thmbup1:

French Canadians, such as the lady in question, are cool in my book. Any culture that has the vision to invent the combination of fries, cheese curds, and gravy is one worthy of respect.
I would have settled for french toast, and maybe a link to Heywood Banks' "Yeah Toast!" song. ...and maybe their maids, hookers, and lingerie too...Which Saber doesn't seem to want to share anymore...:xp:

Jae Onasi
03-23-2011, 07:39 PM
I'm only TEASING on the French thing. I love France. I've been to France. I speak French, albeit poorly. French was one of my undergrad majors.

I honestly can't think of an African country that has more need of military assistance than Libya at the moment. I'd really prefer to hear that the UN is stepping into Libya than to hear that Libyans are getting slaughtered by Qaddafi while their calls for help are falling on deaf ears.
I agree. I also wish the UN had been more active in Sudan.

urluckyday
03-23-2011, 09:03 PM
This should probably be in Kavars....

That said, well done to the Armée de l'Air. I honestly think the French reputation for cowardice is completely unwarranted, and their actions show the critics of the UK and the US that it isn't another Iraq style adventure (it's legal, for a start).

I don't understand how Iraq is any different than this situation. They both were led by tyrannical dictators with oppressive regimes, and they both controlled large oil reserves. The big difference is that Saddam was able to suppress his people far better than Gaddafi was able to. Saddam had killed thousands (if not millions) of his own people (most notably Kurds) and people turned their back on the facts. I'm not saying that the Iraq "adventure" (as you call it) was necessarily the best handled endeavor, but I think to put these two conflicts on different levels would be foolish.

I wish the US would stay out of the Libya conflict and just let Europe take all the blame/gratitude that comes along with being a liberator of evil - not because I'm not proud of my country's ability and willingness to help out, but because the gratefulness of the rest of the world is severely absent. I don't mind being a globalized country, but at this point, I just want to tell the rest of the world to go scratch without the US and see how things turn up. As the world's only true superpower, you just can't win I guess...they complain when you do, and they complain when you don't. I guess it's just my personality, though because I'd rather just walk away from someone who complains too much rather than turn the other cheek and keep helping out. And I stand by that.

urluckyday
03-23-2011, 09:09 PM
As has been pointed out, the Libyan people asked for intervention - as far as I'm aware no other countries have asked the international community for assistance in such a manner.

It's pretty hard for some group of extremely oppressed people to organize and contact the UN on an international scale and just say "hey, this guy's not being real nice to us, so can you send some planes?" Gaddafi just lost control of his people, and they took advantage.

I think if North Koreans could ASK for help they would...

Sabretooth
03-23-2011, 11:41 PM
The response was
"I.. it's simple. Anytime the US is involved it has to be US led. And the missiles are the invaders... I guess..."

Well, I don't blame them. Considering the US' track record, it's only fair that everyone from the rebels to Qadaffi to Peruvian farmers are under the impression that this is some sort of a precursor to a US invasion. :p

@ astor/saber: So essentially what you're saying is once a predator/wifebeater, always a predator/wifebeater?
I don't know about Astor's angle, but what I mean to say is, wifebeaters often look like normal, even nice and loving husbands on the outside. Their lives outside may even be good, or ideal. Inside their homes though, they're wifebeaters, and probably even rapists.

I wish the US would stay out of the Libya conflict and just let Europe take all the blame/gratitude that comes along with being a liberator of evil - not because I'm not proud of my country's ability and willingness to help out, but because the gratefulness of the rest of the world is severely absent. I don't mind being a globalized country, but at this point, I just want to tell the rest of the world to go scratch without the US and see how things turn up. As the world's only true superpower, you just can't win I guess...they complain when you do, and they complain when you don't. I guess it's just my personality, though because I'd rather just walk away from someone who complains too much rather than turn the other cheek and keep helping out. And I stand by that.
Aww don't get bitter, uld, I don't like it when you're like that. :(

I think the US' conundrum is a result of some blunt foreign policy post-WW2. The US fashions itself as a crusader of freedom and human rights, stopping dictators and autocrats just like in WW2 (*Stalin glares*), but their choice of targets seems very picky.

To start with, the US has a long history of buffing up, installing and supporting dictators and autocrats itself; next, the US refuses to condemn sharply restrictive countries like Saudi Arabia while criticising pre-invasion Iraq and modern Iran (I wonder why...).

This, pretty much, is why the US just can't win. If they lead their moral invasion to save civilians from oppressive tyrants in countries that just coincidentally happen to have large reserves of oil, it begs the question why the US isn't directly interfering in the dozens of other civil wars, genocides and autocracies in the world. And amusingly enough, if they don't, the world then asks why the US is staying silent over interfering in *insert country here* when they previously were all gung ho about *insert other country here*.

I think if North Koreans could ASK for help they would...
You know, I actually don't think so. Despite the regime's clampdown on human rights and freedom of speech, the majority of North Koreans lead normal, unhindered lives. Although living there may seem like hell for others, it actually isn't the most difficult or unhappy place in the world (http://vimeo.com/19901182). Remember that even before the generations of propaganda-fed citizens were born, thousands of people had willingly joined Kim.

urluckyday
03-24-2011, 01:57 AM
You know, I actually don't think so. Despite the regime's clampdown on human rights and freedom of speech, the majority of North Koreans lead normal, unhindered lives. Although living there may seem like hell for others, it actually isn't the most difficult or unhappy place in the world (http://vimeo.com/19901182). Remember that even before the generations of propaganda-fed citizens were born, thousands of people had willingly joined Kim.

But then you have to wonder why the US has to send so much food and medical aid to North Korea. They're the most isolated country in the world, and I'm sure the people would love to join the rest of the world in the 21st Century. There was that "inside North Korea" TV documentary on just a little while ago and while there was a large group of people sitting and essentially "praying" to their leader's picture, you could see OBVIOUS fear and restraint. You could tell that they wanted to speak up, but they valued life more than that.

Just because someone supported a leader years ago doesn't mean that they turned out well and treated his/her supporters right. Just look at Idi Amin or the obvious, Adolph Hitler, and you'll see this.

Drunkside
03-24-2011, 06:47 AM
Does it count as a war when they're equipped with little more than 40-year old Soviet tech and put up about as much of a fight as the things I found in my toilet yesterday?

You have no idea how good 40-year old soviet tech is if you think they are not usable. Their strenght lies in the ruggedness of the engineering, most of the soviet weapon technology is pretty much unbreakable, AK:s never get jammed for instance, whereas modern western assault rifles are like delicate flowers... Of death. Dont response with "we havez missiles", as everyone here understands, the actual fighting happens on the ground in this situation.

Damn im an idiot for taking part in a Kavarīs thread once again...

Tommycat
03-24-2011, 10:05 AM
You have no idea how good 40-year old soviet tech is if you think they are not usable. Their strenght lies in the ruggedness of the engineering, most of the soviet weapon technology is pretty much unbreakable, AK:s never get jammed for instance, whereas modern western assault rifles are like delicate flowers... Of death. Dont response with "we havez missiles", as everyone here understands, the actual fighting happens on the ground in this situation.

Damn im an idiot for taking part in a Kavarīs thread once again...

Usable, yes. Effective against more advanced weapons, not do much. We have weapons that are more accurate over a longer distance. But I understand that less advanced weaponry can overcome high tech. I mean the US tanks were not anywhere near the level of German tanks during WWII. But then we had the advantage of having a whole lot of them.

Sabretooth
03-24-2011, 10:47 AM
But then you have to wonder why the US has to send so much food and medical aid to North Korea. They're the most isolated country in the world, and I'm sure the people would love to join the rest of the world in the 21st Century.
North Korea is actually pretty good with infrastructure development - a lot of people there enjoy decent quality of life, lack of freedoms notwithstanding. What I mean is, I'd hardly consider them as a country lacking far behind the 21st Century. I do wonder why the US sends food/medical aid to NK, though...

There was that "inside North Korea" TV documentary on just a little while ago and while there was a large group of people sitting and essentially "praying" to their leader's picture, you could see OBVIOUS fear and restraint. You could tell that they wanted to speak up, but they valued life more than that.
Welp, OBVIOUS fear and restraint doesn't make for good diplomacy. China should might as well invade the US citing the American people are divided between two major political camps and are OBVIOUSLY unhappy about things post-recession. Excuse me, I just got a call from the Communist Party...

Just because someone supported a leader years ago doesn't mean that they turned out well and treated his/her supporters right. Just look at Idi Amin or the obvious, Adolph Hitler, and you'll see this.
Agreed.

Does it count as a war when they're equipped with little more than 40-year old Soviet tech?
I think there were are a couple of wars going on already that fit the bill...

urluckyday
03-24-2011, 04:50 PM
What I mean is, I'd hardly consider them as a country lacking far behind the 21st Century. I do wonder why the US sends food/medical aid to NK, though...

It's pretty well-known that North Korea is full of starvation and famine because the government does not know how to take care of its people. They rely heavily on donations from the US, China, and other countries to feed their people.

I think there were are a couple of wars going on already that fit the bill...

The big difference is that those wars are really only sustained because it's usually between two groups fighting each other with equally antiquated weaponry.

Primogen
03-24-2011, 05:31 PM
You have no idea how good 40-year old soviet tech is if you think they are not usable. Their strenght lies in the ruggedness of the engineering, most of the soviet weapon technology is pretty much unbreakable, AK:s never get jammed for instance, whereas modern western assault rifles are like delicate flowers... Of death. Dont response with "we havez missiles", as everyone here understands, the actual fighting happens on the ground in this situation.


Actually, there are no Coalition troops putting boots on the ground in Libya, we're only utilizing aircraft and missiles. At least officially, we might have special forces deployed over there.

And no, contrary to popular belief, western assault rifles are not delicate flowers. When they're properly maintained and cleaned, they're quite reliable.

Liverandbacon
03-24-2011, 10:06 PM
You have no idea how good 40-year old soviet tech is if you think they are not usable. Their strenght lies in the ruggedness of the engineering, most of the soviet weapon technology is pretty much unbreakable, AK:s never get jammed for instance

The AK47, and the more commonly encountered AKM, while indeed rugged, do jam. Most opinions to the contrary are taken from films or dubious secondhand knowledge.

The AK has aged far more gracefully (largely due to its purpose of cheaply arming a huge number of people with a weapon that they could figure out despite poor training) than most other Soviet military tech. The vast majority of it is painfully outmoded, often to the point of uselessness.

whereas modern western assault rifles are like delicate flowers

Hahahahahahahahahaha.... no. Books, films, games, ignorant journalists, and fobbits greatly exaggerate the problems. As long as a soldier has a modicum of training and common sense, they're not going to have a problem. With some of the more recent guns we've got to play with, even those requirements all but disappear.

Damn im an idiot for taking part in a Kavarīs thread once again...

Nah, we all make that mistake now and again. By the way, if you have any doubts regarding the truth of what I've said, or the extent of my experience, feel free to shoot me a PM and I can give you a rundown of what I'm basing these claims on. (Don't want to drag this too off topic)

Q
03-24-2011, 11:02 PM
Every time I hear about how obsolete and useless Soviet tech is, I'm reminded of how the Serbs somehow managed to shoot down an F-117 "stealth" fighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nighthawk#Combat_losses) with a 30-year-old Soviet surface-to-air missile system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-125_Neva/Pechora) that wasn't even supposed to be able to detect it.

Primogen
03-25-2011, 03:19 AM
The F-117 was made in the 80's, it's a generation old. And I'd like to remind you that the Ethiopians managed to bring down an Italian fighter with slingshots during World War II.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-29-2011, 04:34 PM
I find the NATO's intervention to be lacking in moral and legitimacy grounds. If this tricky concept of humanitarian war was true then it should be applied at every occasion it's necessary, not use it sparsely and selectively as it has been. That is if we're really accepting that sovereignty is an aging precept with no room in the modern world.

Why call it a No-Fly Zone when they're in all reality wiping out all of Gaddafi's forces minus infantry?
Because, as it was proven in the Bosnian War, a no-fly zone can't properly be achieved without taking out targets such as airports, runways and refuelling stations. Just a formal written prohibition won't do much good. That's why a no-fly zone equals to a war declaration.

Gaddafi accuses NATO and the UN of not just "protecting Lybian civillians' "human rights" and actively helping the overestimated rebel forces to win the, what now has become, conflict. He's not wrong.


In the case of Saddam, we did put him the garbage can. We had peace in Iraq until Al-Qaeda came in large numbers and triggered mass sectarian violence. When we got our *** in gear and made the troop surge, peace was restored.
Just because they're not all over the news now it doesn't mean there are still almost daily terrorist acts going on Iraq.

If this were solely about Oil, we wouldn't be attacking Gaddafi - we'd more than likely be continuing our business deals with him.Agreed. It has a lot do with witness elimination of sorts.

When Gaddafi said earlier this month - before NATO took action - that he had "compromising evidence" about Sarkozy's election and later Gaddafi's son gave an interview (http://www.euronews.net/2011/03/16/gaddafi-s-son-calls-the-libyan-rebels-traitors/) claiming that Lybia helped funding his campaign, France was nimble to propose more serious action to be taken against Lybia.

Some other recent news regarding Berlusconi (he's facing underaged prostituition charges and impeachment threats) and the London School of Economics fiasco, ties Italy and England to the list of countries that have something to lose if Gaddafi does not come down or, in Berlusconi's case, if there's no war involving his country to divert those claiming for an impeachment.

It's not like those facts are not public now but finally, after years out of NATO and UN's black list, Gaddafi is being a nuisance again. It's political.

Mandalorian Knight
04-07-2011, 04:12 PM
The AK47, and the more commonly encountered AKM, while indeed rugged, do jam. Most opinions to the contrary are taken from films or dubious secondhand knowledge.

The AK has aged far more gracefully (largely due to its purpose of cheaply arming a huge number of people with a weapon that they could figure out despite poor training) than most other Soviet military tech. The vast majority of it is painfully outmoded, often to the point of uselessness.



Hahahahahahahahahaha.... no. Books, films, games, ignorant journalists, and fobbits greatly exaggerate the problems. As long as a soldier has a modicum of training and common sense, they're not going to have a problem. With some of the more recent guns we've got to play with, even those requirements all but disappear.

Agreed. Unfortunately the media (books, films, journalists as you stated) has to criticize the military for some reason. The M16, for example has been in use for 40+ years (albeit upgraded) because it's an effective rifle.

The following is mostly an educated guess on my part. Just going to go ahead and say that. :)
As far as troops on the ground in Libya goes, it's obvious to me that some country has to have some kind Special Operations Forces on the ground. The rebels are (out of necessity) are using similar or identical vehicles and equipment to the Libyan military. Discerning who is who from the air is extremely difficult without the aid of some kind of direction from the ground. According to USA Today last week, A-10s and AC-130s have been deployed. The AC-130 in particular is an SOF support craft, which reinforces my belief that someone has boots on the ground.

Liverandbacon
04-07-2011, 06:37 PM
As far as troops on the ground in Libya goes, it's obvious to me that some country has to have some kind Special Operations Forces on the ground. The rebels are (out of necessity) are using similar or identical vehicles and equipment to the Libyan military. Discerning who is who from the air is extremely difficult without the aid of some kind of direction from the ground. According to USA Today last week, A-10s and AC-130s have been deployed. The AC-130 in particular is an SOF support craft, which reinforces my belief that someone has boots on the ground.

Various news sources have already reported confirmation from government officials that the CIA and the UK's SAS and SBS have people on the ground. I don't know what's being said on the UK side, but the official Agency response is 'no comment'. However, if it was intended to be hidden from the public, the media wouldn't have found out at all.

Mandalorian Knight
04-07-2011, 06:43 PM
I hadn't heard that. Thanks for the info :)

Primogen
04-07-2011, 08:44 PM
Various news sources, such as? I mean, I don't really doubt that the CIA has agents in Libya, or that the UK has deployed special forces units, but it seems a bit peculiar that government officials would confirm it without ending up dead from 'Aggravated Suicide' a few hours later.

Mandalorian Knight
04-07-2011, 09:02 PM
Various news sources, such as? I mean, I don't really doubt that the CIA has agents in Libya, or that the UK has deployed special forces units, but it seems a bit peculiar that government officials would confirm it without ending up dead from 'Aggravated Suicide' a few hours later.

It's a way for the politicians to cover their... to have their stories straight. If their respected governments had gone on about how there wouldn't be anyone deployed on the ground, and if a SOF guy is later captured by troops loyal to Ghadafi, then the politicians lose points in the polls and credibility. This way they can confirm what other governments will expect anyways while not giving any specific details.

I do wonder what the Rules of Engagement for these troops are. Are they only permitted to call in airstrikes? Or do they have other roles, such as training the rebels or operating independently to attack targets of opportunity? Unfortunately, that much *definitely* isn't going to be shared with the public.

Astor
04-08-2011, 03:44 AM
Various news sources, such as? I mean, I don't really doubt that the CIA has agents in Libya, or that the UK has deployed special forces units, but it seems a bit peculiar that government officials would confirm it without ending up dead from 'Aggravated Suicide' a few hours later.

I believe it was reported over here the other week that President Obama had given authorisation for US special forces to operate on the ground, but yeah, it is a little strange.

I know our government had deployed the SAS during the mass evacuation of foreigners to get people out from the oil fields... and from a nostaglic point of view, the SAS was practically born in that desert - but I doubt they'll be driving pink jeeps with machine guns now.

As for actual, full on troops on the ground, if it happens, I wouldn't be surprised to see the French at the head of the column.

Sabretooth
04-08-2011, 05:36 AM
I do wonder what the Rules of Engagement for these troops are. Are they only permitted to call in airstrikes? Or do they have other roles, such as training the rebels or operating independently to attack targets of opportunity? Unfortunately, that much *definitely* isn't going to be shared with the public.

I remember reading one of the anti-Qadaffi protestors in Benghazi saying that some Western troops are on the ground, training civilians for combat [Al Jazeera, I believe], so it wouldn't be too far-fetched to think they're doing serious business in there.

Liverandbacon
04-08-2011, 12:10 PM
Various news sources, such as? I mean, I don't really doubt that the CIA has agents in Libya, or that the UK has deployed special forces units, but it seems a bit peculiar that government officials would confirm it without ending up dead from 'Aggravated Suicide' a few hours later.

BBC, New York Times, a ton of others.

As for confirmation, that's not peculiar at all. The US gov (and I'd assume the UK gov too) doesn't really care if people know, since it really isn't surprising, or anything worth hiding. Obama authorized CIA assistance in a very transparent way, when there are all manner of other, quieter, ways to do the same. The decision-makers likely want the people to know about this, or at the very least don't care. I worded my post to not present CIA/SAS+SBS involvement as fact, only the media's confirmation, because as a gov employee (or tool of capitalist imperialist world domination if you prefer) I have rules that need to be followed about what to post on the internet, and I like to stay well away from the boundary of what's allowed. However, if the media wasn't meant to know about it, they wouldn't, and there's not much reason for an official to fake it. Take that as you will.

The CIA leadership is saying 'no comment' because general policy is to not flat out confirm anything, leaving that to the discretion of certain other officials. You'll find that, when asked, the CIA is likely to say 'no comment' on even fairly innocuous activities from years ago that are common knowledge, even those with documents released under the FOIA.

edit: Only one thing has really been flat out denied, instead of 'no comment'. The US has not aided in arming the rebels. Considering how many Al Qaeda fighters and sympathizers have joined the cause, this is a good thing. Arming them for the tiny period of time where our interests are somewhat aligned would be a poor decision (honestly, a complete rebel victory could be very dangerous indeed; it might be preferable for western nations if the rebels just applied enough pressure to trigger a palace coup, followed by reform, instead of a new government being formed from the ground up, with a high risk of domination by militant Islamic interests).

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. The enemy of my enemy is a problem for later, to be cautiously used in the present.