Libyan War

[HeyYou]

I agree. It is indeed about time. What I find amusing is, BOTH parties cooperated on this, and passed the resolutions.

[Ghogiel]

Well by the way it was put, a no fly zone and a naval blockade were imo the best decisions. At least to contain and minimise a possible humanitarian catastrophe. It's very difficult to protect civilians in 4th gen warfare, because no one knows wtf is going on. But in this case it seems there are clear sides and armies.

 

As long as they duke it out without murdering half a million civilians then I'd say there isn't a need for further intervention. I hope Gaddafi loses though :whistling:

 

though with the smell of oil in the water.. the sharks might be all over it.

[HeyYou]

Well by the way it was put, a no fly zone and a naval blockade were imo the best decisions. At least to contain and minimise a possible humanitarian catastrophe. It's very difficult to protect civilians in 4th gen warfare, because no one knows wtf is going on. But in this case it seems there are clear sides and armies.

 

As long as they duke it out without murdering half a million civilians then I'd say there isn't a need for further intervention. I hope Gaddafi loses though :whistling:

 

though with the smell of oil in the water.. the sharks might be all over it.

 

I suspect that oil is the primary reason for our involvement in the first place. Libya has lots of it, and we want it. Reminds me a lot of Iraq...... and we see how well that went..... when oil leases came up for bid, american companies were conspicuous by their absence.... reason being? Unable to ensure security of their employees. Spot on prediction there. Iraq STILL is barely ahead of where they were with oil production when Saddam was in power, and the problem then was sanctions, not a lack of capacity.

 

I still contend that what happens there is none of our concern. The most we had to do with qaddafi and his country, was to impose sanctions for supporting terrorism. Then when he supposedly stopped doing that, he was our buddy. But wait, when the 'revolution' started, now we are again his enemy. Would a bit of consistency be too much to ask for? Apparently so. This is another war we, and the UN, should NOT be involved in. The rebels knew what they were up against. If they weren't prepared for the consequences, then they shouldn't have started open rebellion. It isn't OUR job to support every little group that decides to overthrow a government, whether we like them or not. It inevitably turns out bad.

[Ghogiel]

my initial thought when this started was: oh they want a revolution? GL on that :thumbsup:

 

A no fly zone and naval blockcade sounds like reasonable action, the main reason was that Gaddafi was probably going to go bananas on Tripoli or something and just bomb the hell out of civilians and all that, start a terror campaign to force the civilians into platitude. So the no fly zone makes sense imo, just shoot any inbound bombers out the air but other wise sit back and leave them to get on. . But yeah, they should really fight their own wars in this case.

[Isilmeriel]

The media is so one sided on this that it's scary.

 

It's all about Gadaffi this and Gadaffi that. Why are there so few reports on the rebels themselves? Who are these guys.

[Ghogiel]

They just look like armed civilians for the most part. All the media I have seen is embedded in there with the 'rebels'. there is a lot of media of covering these guys. From my perspective its the opposite, I hear hardly anything from Gaddafi supporters. :unsure:

[marharth]

They just look like armed civilians for the most part. All the media I have seen is embedded in there with the 'rebels'. there is a lot of media of covering these guys. From my perspective its the opposite, I hear hardly anything from Gaddafi supporters. :unsure:

They aren't even slightly trained, I could shoot a gun five times better then most of the rebels there.

 

They are not going to win if they don't get training.

[MrDoctorDD]

For the US to continue to support them would be a waste. It has always been a waste, we owe so many people money yet, we dictate within nato for these muslim nations how to act, let them rebel, add them all to a no fly list, no support and watch them. That's it. Let Russia deal with them, though I am sure they are supporting half of the efforts.

[DeTomaso]

Under war conditions things are different, totally different. So what you can in arms or not one will see first when you come under fire but not before and not at home. Skills on the shooting gallery, in hunting or in video gaming offer absolutely no guarantee to be brave in the field, it just makes killing as such easier, but not the handling of the own fear under stress, oh no.

What you see right now among the rebels in Libya is the quite natural selection. After some time only the born soldiers will survive. If they are too low in numbers they will lose the war, finally, no matter how brave they were. And modern weaponry is, contrary to certain beloved opinions that are always on a medial endless loop, just a minor part of the game, for otherwise lost wars of the past should have been won. Conventional fire power is no key to success. That's the lesson from asymmetric warfare, warfare that is by no means to be decided within a quarter, the time frame of medial interest. It might take years, sometimes even a decade or more.

Now, we not only don't hear anything of the pro-Gaddafi faction, we know almost nothing about these folks, nothing is made known to us. Such a one-sided knowledge sounds like horse mind. We better have to investigate the other side as well to assess more than just worthless propaganda opinion.

Edited June 4, 2011 by DeTomaso

[nosisab]

No war is good, but the actual question should be: "How correct/righteous are men?"

 

PS: countries don't make war, men do, men with their own agenda, motivations and behavior.

Edited June 4, 2011 by nosisab