You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 09:56:32 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 7420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lord Drake

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2011, 06:56:32 AM »
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.

The current Italian government is more intervent-oriented. From what I heard from news, the reason for the first attempt at neutrality was that Italy had solid diplomatic contacts both with the rebels and Gheddafi and so neutrality was advisable in order to keep up those connections.

The colonel's attitude, though, has recently made clear that diplomacy would not bring acceptable solutions on his part.

Online Zeitgeist

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2011, 07:19:09 AM »
And you know, either taking Qaddafi out directly or getting lucky with a missile hit won't really resolve anything. He has been in charge for 40+ years, and I doubt he's done that alone. There are his sons, and people close to him that are loyal. I doubt his death would magically turn anything around significantly.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2011, 08:22:28 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.

This is NOT a humanitarian mission I have military people as friend and relatives helping others after a natural disaster like the Tsunami's some time ago and now Japan are something they are proud to do its mercy and no one is putting our soldiers into harms way as in being shot at. In this case we voted for it in the UN giving it authority that should suffice and we should pull out of this now and let other more regional nations take the lead.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2011, 10:58:36 AM »
And you know, either taking Qaddafi out directly or getting lucky with a missile hit won't really resolve anything. He has been in charge for 40+ years, and I doubt he's done that alone. There are his sons, and people close to him that are loyal. I doubt his death would magically turn anything around significantly.

Well I think a lot of military folk are invested in his holding on to power (that is... the Libyan military) but unlike some other regimes he clearly has some opponents. One of his own sons went to the other side. And there is a LOT of resentment in the international community towards him. Aside from token complaints from the Arab league he's been on his own side. I doubt even the Arab League wants much to do with him since he's had operations in any number of their countries to kill dissidents and he has made it clear in the past that he'd like to be the head of an United Arab state.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2011, 11:12:06 AM »
Well I think a lot of military folk are invested in his holding on to power (that is... the Libyan military)

Although there was the one guy that Glyphstone mentioned who defected rather than bombing civilians.  Maybe the upper echelons of the Libyan military are with him, but the rank and file may be less enthusiastic.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2011, 11:16:40 AM »
Although there was the one guy that Glyphstone mentioned who defected rather than bombing civilians.  Maybe the upper echelons of the Libyan military are with him, but the rank and file may be less enthusiastic.

Yeah supposedly the bombings and such are being done by mercs rather than his own airforce. I doubt that made any points with them.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2011, 11:30:16 AM »
How high up in Air Force heirarchy is a colonel?

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2011, 11:38:39 AM »
How high up in Air Force heirarchy is a colonel?

Not sure.. but considering he's  been named 'King of Kings' in the past I think rank is moot.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2011, 11:46:31 AM »
Not sure.. but considering he's  been named 'King of Kings' in the past I think rank is moot.

I didn't mean Gaddafi specifically, I meant in a real Air Force. The pilot who defected was a Libyan Air Force colonel...obviously not 'equal' to Gaddafi himself, but I was curious how high up that would be in typical ranking.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2011, 11:47:21 AM »
How high up in Air Force heirarchy is a colonel?

'Full bird' colonel in the US Air Force is the sixth 'officer' rank, just below a brigadier (or one star) general.  Very similar to Army hierarchy, if you remember your M*A*S*H episodes.

Offline consortium11

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2011, 11:53:21 AM »
How high up in Air Force heirarchy is a colonel?

Gaddafi is infamous for using mercenary forces in his army... he did for much of the Chad wars. That said the amount is sometimes overstated... there's a certain amount of cultural/tribal racism involved against Southern Africans in Libya.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2011, 12:11:39 PM »
What gives me is aside from his rank, he's not had an OFFICIAL position in the government, according to him, since the 1980s or so.


Of course is President Reagan hadn't 'missed' him in the 80s he'd have most likely followed through with some of his bolder plans (like training/financing insurgents throughout Europe and the US. I know that sometime after the first bombing of the Twin Towers a Libyan was caught coming across the US/American border with a bundle of plastic explosive.
 

Offline Sabby

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2011, 01:58:02 PM »
I may be a bit late here, but... why the hell is someone rolling tanks into their own country?

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2011, 02:00:13 PM »
I may be a bit late here, but... why the hell is someone rolling tanks into their own country?

Someone who has decided that having infantry shooting his dissenting citizens isn't enough. Supposedly he's got snipers picking off folks with tanks as support. Nice guy eh?

Offline Sabby

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #39 on: March 21, 2011, 02:21:41 PM »
The fuck? Wow :/ This is why I avoid politics, because I can't even begin to comprehend how that started and how action is being taken.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #40 on: March 21, 2011, 02:28:14 PM »
The fuck? Wow :/ This is why I avoid politics, because I can't even begin to comprehend how that started and how action is being taken.

Qaddafi is a sociopathic megalomaniac with enough pull to get someone else to do the shooting for him.  It may not be medically accurate, but it's a good enough explanation to keep my head from exploding.

Offline Ramster

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2011, 03:10:31 PM »
He hasn't stayed a dictator for 20-odd years by nursing sick puppies back to health!

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2011, 05:26:07 PM »
He hasn't stayed a dictator for 20-odd years by nursing sick puppies back to health!

Make that 40 odd years. 

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #43 on: March 21, 2011, 08:21:10 PM »
Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling this is going to turn into another long-term war, as we are increasingly drawn into conflicts in the oil-producing regions of the Mideast.  And if the Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict flares into open warfare, as it shows signs of doing, all bets are off.  Things are going to get UGLY.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #44 on: March 21, 2011, 08:52:40 PM »
Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling this is going to turn into another long-term war, as we are increasingly drawn into conflicts in the oil-producing regions of the Mideast.  And if the Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict flares into open warfare, as it shows signs of doing, all bets are off.  Things are going to get UGLY.

They ARE Ugly.. we over committed ourselves back in the early part of this decade. Every military leader with a star on his shoulder that said so got the boot courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld, and now we're going to pay that price. We overlooked the vulnerbility of the Afganistan/Pakistan border and the influence of the Taliban in Pakistan. That should have been our focus. Saddam was a bastard, sick and twisted but he understood the bottom line (like the Colonel).

We could have leaned on him, worked Afganistan on the front burner from day one. As anyone who has seen the military messes that have occurred in that region since Alexander the great would know, quick fast effective moves and management are the way that region should have been handled.

Instead we spent years fighting insurgency in Iraq that was mostly our fault since we didn't control the borders when we invaded. Syria and Iran both slipped folks in and I'm betting support groups to this day. What a bloody waste of time and man power this has been.

Right now, thanks to 'right sizing' we couldn't commit people to the ground in another region effectively. Hopefully the European powers who have been the Colonel's victims for so long should do it. I'd like the Arab League to do it..but honestly I don't trust most of them to contribute to rebuilding an effective country afterward.

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #45 on: March 21, 2011, 10:05:25 PM »
The Arab League neither has the military or coordination to do a job like this. We say they are in the picture to keep it a clean fight and not make it look like it is the west interfering again. They asked us to do this because they can't do it themselves. Not a single one of their militarys is trained well enough.


Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #46 on: March 21, 2011, 10:31:08 PM »
So far I think Obama is handling this well...self-serving criticisms from the GOP re the expense of the mission notwithstanding.  Funny how the GOP's accountants were on vacation when the Iraq debacle was undertaken.

I think the next month is going to be critical.  If Obama sticks to plan--spend the rest of March softening up Gaddafi's forces and then draw down American forces and reduce our role to strictly advisory and recon by the middle of April--I'll say this is going to be a success, at least from America's standpoint. 

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #47 on: March 21, 2011, 11:24:30 PM »
Depends on how stiff the Europeans stay at it. I bet the will, every country involved has had some sort of Libyan sponsored event(s) on their soil.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2011, 11:20:34 AM »
My father is former Military Intelligence and worked embassy duty mostly he said there are assets of our on the ground Special Forces and very likely CIA, all under the radar. He should know he arranged this in more than one situation hand picking teams to go in for education and ground intelligence of allied rebels. If so we have boots on the ground in harms way so screw Obama on this we should have abstained or voted for it on condition nothing else should be expected from us.

I wish the US would declare itself neutral and stay out of world affairs like this.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The attacks start on Lybia
« Reply #49 on: March 22, 2011, 11:27:30 AM »
My father is former Military Intelligence and worked embassy duty mostly he said there are assets of our on the ground Special Forces and very likely CIA, all under the radar. He should know he arranged this in more than one situation hand picking teams to go in for education and ground intelligence of allied rebels. If so we have boots on the ground in harms way so screw Obama on this we should have abstained or voted for it on condition nothing else should be expected from us.

I wish the US would declare itself neutral and stay out of world affairs like this.

We tried that a couple times.. the first time Germany offered Mexico a chunk of our territory (The Zimmer telegram) if we started coming into the war upon resumption of unrestricted sub warfare (world war 1) and the second time we tried to stay neutral Japan attacked us and four days later Germany and Italy declared war on the US.

We're too big to be neutral. Have been for the better part of a century and change. What we do can, and should be limited, in this case but we can't stay neutral.

The point is Ruby, we can't be neutral. Too many folks in this will assume we're using cut outs and puppets. If we take a definite but limited role we can show that we aren't moving in a manner similar to Iraq nine years ago.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 11:29:13 AM by Callie Del Noire »