You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 03:52:10 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The attacks start on Lybia  (Read 7445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online SilkTopic starter

The attacks start on Lybia
« on: March 20, 2011, 04:47:41 AM »


According to the powers that be, Gaddafi has ignored the proposed ceasefire and has now been directly attacking his civlians, by edict of the security council, the U.N. now has to step in. But what is your opinion on this?

Offline Sabby

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2011, 05:02:41 AM »
What? o.o

Online SilkTopic starter


Offline Vekseid

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2011, 08:23:28 AM »
I'm... cautiously optimistic. Maybe it's because there's been so much bad news lately.

Part of the reason this took so long was it had to be made clear that the US, France and Britain couldn't just magically throw up a no fly zone and knock planes out of the sky and hope that would be the end of it. Gaddafi does not have numerical superiority - he has the heavy weapons. With the resolution essentially giving open license to destroy these assets, if the rebels really do have it together (their leader had a long talk with Clinton in France, apparently), then this could turn out well, if humanitarian aid comes shortly after.

I get the feeling that this is basically a sort of leap of faith kind of action. I can't profess to be comfortable with that, but I can't say I'm comfortable sitting by while someone goes pounding innocent civilians, either.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2011, 08:52:34 AM »
The US was told we would support the action and now we are firing our missles into Lybia, I say let other people do the fighting we should provide just the UN Authorization which we did and leave others to fight this time. The Chinese have a big military let them send in aircraft and later ground troops with the French and other nations.

I'm sure the Foreign Legion can provide ample military power to and they are mostly scum turned into fighting forces so tend to be good at fighting.

Online SilkTopic starter

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2011, 09:02:54 AM »
But as the US is part of the U.N's security council and world police, they don't really have much choice but to get directly involved.

Offline Kurzyk

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2011, 09:13:52 AM »
Im concerned about the US sanctions on oil trade. The price of oil has already risen 18% since the insurrection in Libya.

"A war directed against Libya would push the price of crude oil up to abysmally high levels, potentially triggering a global inflationary spiral, which would result in the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

A sizeable increase in the price of oil over a prolonged period would wreck economic havoc: production and transportation costs would increase dramatically. Hikes in the costs of fuel and energy would trigger a renewed string of bankruptcies in major sectors of economic activity. They would also contribute to a sizeable increase in the external debt of developing countries."
http://unhypnotize.com/economy-currency/53466-humanitarian-wars-good-business-speculators-applaud.html

Offline Vekseid

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2011, 09:36:01 AM »
Libya only has 2% of the world's oil reserves. And it would be an open question as to how much better letting the colonel have free reign would do to ameliorate the disruption anyway, since it's the oil producing parts that are actually in the greatest revolt.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2011, 09:46:02 AM »
But as the US is part of the U.N's security council and world police, they don't really have much choice but to get directly involved.

Yes we do we paid our blood how many times for these actions and China the big rival now - nadda.

Its not our job to police the world we have five peer nations and the elected security council there to why is it always our nation to be dog of war China, Russia, the UK and France are all armed and capable are they not? And the UN Resolution called for a control of the skies why are we firing missles into the nations ground capability if its to be a NO FLY zone?

Offline Sure

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2011, 09:52:33 AM »
OPEC has an interest in that not happening. OPEC purposefully stunts its production so as to drive up profits. So OPEC could produce more in order to prevent that from happening. So it won't happen.

Furthermore, Libya is not in the top fifteen places we import oil from. That means at least 95% of the oil we consume each year is safe, probably more since the remaining 5% is everyone else including Libya.

PS: It is doubtful the Chinese military could reach America effectively, let alone Libya.

Online SilkTopic starter

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2011, 10:00:06 AM »
Yes we do we paid our blood how many times for these actions and China the big rival now - nadda.

Its not our job to police the world we have five peer nations and the elected security council there to why is it always our nation to be dog of war China, Russia, the UK and France are all armed and capable are they not? And the UN Resolution called for a control of the skies why are we firing missles into the nations ground capability if its to be a NO FLY zone?

Yep, and all those counties are also putting in legwork into lybia, argueably, a lot more than what america is doing. America is firing missles, france is actually sending their servicemen into hot zones, britain is also firing missles and policing airspace. Its just as well saying that their capable, but those other countries can do the same quite happily. Its a shared burden just because you might not hear of the other contries work doesnt mean their not working.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2011, 10:23:16 AM »
Yes we do we paid our blood how many times for these actions and China the big rival now - nadda.

Its not our job to police the world we have five peer nations and the elected security council there to why is it always our nation to be dog of war China, Russia, the UK and France are all armed and capable are they not? And the UN Resolution called for a control of the skies why are we firing missles into the nations ground capability if its to be a NO FLY zone?

China is specifically playing hands-off right now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798568
Quote
Russia and China, which abstained from the UN Security Council resolution approving the use of force in Libya, have urged all parties to stop fighting, as has the African Union.
So is Germany - it's the rest of the SC that is employing their forces.

Online SilkTopic starter

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2011, 10:52:44 AM »
To downplay the situation, it can be summed up with "ok, since your not going to play fair, now big brothers going to get involved"

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2011, 10:55:29 AM »
We are not committing ground forces this is important. The other partners may but I believe the goal is to level the playing field so the rebels can do the job themselves. The last thing we can afford is another drawn out war that we are leading the charge in. This time it looks like the European nations with the blessing of the Arab League is doing the bulk of the fighting.

As far as why the US? Should we sit by and watch people get butchered when we know we can stop it? Should we let someone win a war that shot at his own people demonstrating to start it? Why does the US get involved in every conflict, disaster, aid relief when things happen in the world? Because we are the only country that has the military to do it. The proportion of us helping in disasters to conflicts I bet is extremely high.

Online SilkTopic starter

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2011, 10:59:37 AM »
We are not committing ground forces this is important. The other partners may but I believe the goal is to level the playing field so the rebels can do the job themselves. The last thing we can afford is another drawn out war that we are leading the charge in. This time it looks like the European nations with the blessing of the Arab League is doing the bulk of the fighting.

As far as why the US? Should we sit by and watch people get butchered when we know we can stop it? Should we let someone win a war that shot at his own people demonstrating to start it? Why does the US get involved in every conflict, disaster, aid relief when things happen in the world? Because we are the only country that has the military to do it. The proportion of us helping in disasters to conflicts I bet is extremely high.

Kind of happens when your country is spending half of the global military budget

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2011, 02:56:52 PM »
Considering it is France, Italy and Britain and not the US that have the long troubled colonial history in North Africa, then it makes sense to me they play a heavy role and the associated risks that come with it. Whether or not this action will result in Qaddafi's ouster remains to be seen. Simply evening the playing field, a characterization tossed around, may not be enough.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2011, 04:12:51 PM »
Considering it is France, Italy and Britain and not the US that have the long troubled colonial history in North Africa, then it makes sense to me they play a heavy role and the associated risks that come with it. Whether or not this action will result in Qaddafi's ouster remains to be seen. Simply evening the playing field, a characterization tossed around, may not be enough.

Not to mention most of the shit he pulled over the years was directed at them. There have been assassinations of critics of Gadhafi all over the world, most particularly the UK (Including the murder of one policewoman during one), and he has knowingly, willfully and intentionally supplied training and arms to a good number of European terrorists over the years. He's even bragged about it.

He's lied to the media in the past, so the claims of widespread civilian casualties in the last few days to outside missles/air strikes won't be believable to me without independent verification. Given that he refuses to let reporters into the strike zones, I doubt its' as bad as he says.

He's been quiet for a decade, but before that he was very much an antagonistic element in the Mediterranean and Europe.

Offline Vekseid

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2011, 05:09:22 PM »
Considering it is France, Italy and Britain and not the US that have the long troubled colonial history in North Africa, then it makes sense to me they play a heavy role and the associated risks that come with it. Whether or not this action will result in Qaddafi's ouster remains to be seen. Simply evening the playing field, a characterization tossed around, may not be enough.

Italy is staying out of this. So is most of the US, apparently - the Enterprise is there but not actually taking action, and Obama has only a month or two before requiring congressional approval. He's basically gambling that the rebels will have this in thirty days.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2011, 05:25:54 PM »
Italy is staying out of this. So is most of the US, apparently - the Enterprise is there but not actually taking action, and Obama has only a month or two before requiring congressional approval. He's basically gambling that the rebels will have this in thirty days.

He hasn't been as big a thorn in the US side as he has been with Europe. Nothing like being in a tent outside your military HQ when US carrier group bombs it to make you behave.

He's said things like he'd wipe Switzerland off the face of the earth if he had nukes (after his son was arrested there for Battery) and his actions in France and the UK are without a doubt all but warfare in name. I know he's okay-ed the murder of rivals on pilgrimage to Mecca and the Suadis have stopped at least one attempt to do so.

The most daring thing I can think of having heard of him doing in the US, aside from trying to finance insurgent groups, was the snatch of a Libyan dissident before he could be granted citizen ship and executing him.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 05:27:06 PM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline Jude

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2011, 06:04:53 PM »
This feels like such a stupid position to endorse after Afghanistan and Iraq, but I really do think that Gaddafi needs to be taken out.  How, what happens after, and our role in everything needs to be considered to prevent a post-dictator Libya that ends up like Iraq and Afghanistan did.

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #20 on: March 20, 2011, 06:09:15 PM »
Italy is staying out of this. So is most of the US, apparently - the Enterprise is there but not actually taking action, and Obama has only a month or two before requiring congressional approval. He's basically gambling that the rebels will have this in thirty days.

Not only is Italy making available airfields in Sicily for operations, it also is contributing their own fighter planes.

http://english.cri.cn/6966/2011/03/20/1821s627464.htm

And so they should.

From what I understand, we've fired a number (100+) tomahawk missiles from surface ships and submarines into Libya. So I think it is safe to say we are more than just involved on the sidelines.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2011, 06:25:14 PM »
One of my buddies.. who was a marine, pointed out a long time ago that it didn't matter how much you hit things from the air. You don't control the ground till you have boots on the ground. Period. You don't control anything unless you're in the dirt and such.

So, if things are going the way some folks think it will. SOMEONE will have to send in peacekeepers sooner or later. I find it interesting that he's using mercs to do most of his heavy lifting.

Offline Vekseid

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2011, 07:43:19 PM »
Not only is Italy making available airfields in Sicily for operations, it also is contributing their own fighter planes.

http://english.cri.cn/6966/2011/03/20/1821s627464.htm

And so they should.

From what I understand, we've fired a number (100+) tomahawk missiles from surface ships and submarines into Libya. So I think it is safe to say we are more than just involved on the sidelines.

Wow, that's quite a reversal from Italy's previous position.

And yes, American involvement has been pretty tame compared to the assets that we can bring to bear over there.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2011, 07:46:58 PM »
One of my buddies.. who was a marine, pointed out a long time ago that it didn't matter how much you hit things from the air. You don't control the ground till you have boots on the ground. Period. You don't control anything unless you're in the dirt and such.

So, if things are going the way some folks think it will. SOMEONE will have to send in peacekeepers sooner or later. I find it interesting that he's using mercs to do most of his heavy lifting.

Probably because his regulars might be unreliable when the crunch time happens. There was that Libyan Air Force colonel who defected after being ordered to bomb civilians when this all started, and Libya's riddled with tribal affiliations.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2011, 07:54:58 PM »
Probably because his regulars might be unreliable when the crunch time happens. There was that Libyan Air Force colonel who defected after being ordered to bomb civilians when this all started, and Libya's riddled with tribal affiliations.

Not to mention one of his sons is supposed to have gone over to the other side.