A people's Revolution

Sky News ticker:


Gaddafi tells Benghazi residents "We are coming tonight" and "there won't be any mercy"

They are also saying that unarmed residents will be safe but all houses will be searched.

UN Security Council schedules vote on Libyan no-fly zone resolution for tonight at 10:00pm GMT (with China, Russia, Brazil, India and Germany likely to abstain).
 
Red Defence said:
Sky News ticker:


Gaddafi tells Benghazi residents "We are coming tonight" and "there won't be any mercy"

They are also saying that unarmed residents will be safe but all houses will be searched.

UN Security Council schedules vote on Libyan no-fly zone resolution for tonight at 10:00pm GMT (with China, Russia, Brazil, India and Germany likely to abstain).
Click to expand...

Apparently they are there
 
The US says it's willing to do anything short of putting boots on the ground. Strategic strikes against Gaddafi would be extremely useful.
 
True. There are pro Gaddafi and anti Gaddafi factions in Libya and both have the right to voice their opinions and fight for what they believe in. It is up to the people of the country to decide what they want, not us.

We should take all measures to prevent slaughter of one faction of the people by the government though.
 
RedSky At Night said:
About bloody time. Now go in there and give the Libyans a fighting chance!
Click to expand...

I agree, but I don't think everyone's thrown quite as much thought at this as needed. It's unlikely to be a matter of just keeping theirs from flying. For the good guys to have planes in the air it likely means suppressing any sort of anti-aircraft fire (missles and shells) which means basically dropping bombs. Civilian casualties from American bombs (even if it's the UN) are hard to take, but have to be realistically expected, and will make the effort seem heavy handed with a predictable political fallout. That's fine by me as it's for a righteous cause, but it's worth noting, as if it drags out, it could well become counterproductive on the home and the Libyan front.

Again, I'm all for it, but like most things it bears a bit more thought that it's been given.
 
brad-dyrak said:
I agree, but I don't think everyone's thrown quite as much thought at this as needed. It's unlikely to be a matter of just keeping theirs from flying. For the good guys to have planes in the air it likely means suppressing any sort of anti-aircraft fire (missles and shells) which means basically dropping bombs. Civilian casualties from American bombs (even if it's the UN) are hard to take, but have to be realistically expected, and will make the effort seem heavy handed with a predictable political fallout. That's fine by me as it's for a righteous cause, but it's worth noting, as if it drags out, it could well become counterproductive on the home and the Libyan front.

Again, I'm all for it, but like most things it bears a bit more thought that it's been given.
Click to expand...

The difference being this isn't Iraq or Afghan. The enemy at this momment in time is very visible. Currently its not an urban warfare so planes will be able to inflict ALOT of damage on Gaddafis army.

If he then decides to adopt a change in tactics and use civilians as shields then theres not alot we can do m'afraid. But i'd certainly start shelling roads/airstrips etc to slow down the advance to Benghazi. The first 24 hours will be very important in testing the loyality of Gaddafi's troops. Once the planes start coming in i'm not so sure they'll be so willing to fight for him. We shall see.
 
Red Defence said:
True. There are pro Gaddafi and anti Gaddafi factions in Libya and both have the right to voice their opinions and fight for what they believe in. It is up to the people of the country to decide what they want, not us..
Click to expand...

If what the pro Gaddafi faction believes in is oppressing the country and violently attacking protesting civilians, then no, they don't have the right to voice their opinions.

Or rather, they have the right, but something's going to be done about the fighting part.
 
RedSky At Night said:
The difference being this isn't Iraq or Afghan. The enemy at this momment in time is very visible. Currently its not an urban warfare so planes will be able to inflict ALOT of damage on Gaddafis army.

If he then decides to adopt a change in tactics and use civilians as shields then theres not alot we can do m'afraid. But i'd certainly start shelling roads/airstrips etc to slow down the advance to Benghazi. The first 24 hours will be very important in testing the loyality of Gaddafi's troops. Once the planes start coming in i'm not so sure they'll be so willing to fight for him. We shall see.
Click to expand...

Good post. Very easy to "believe in" the man that has superior resources and a massive advantage. Simply evening the odds could be a huge factor in getting him out
 
RedSky At Night said:
The difference being this isn't Iraq or Afghan. The enemy at this momment in time is very visible. Currently its not an urban warfare so planes will be able to inflict ALOT of damage on Gaddafis army.

If he then decides to adopt a change in tactics and use civilians as shields then theres not alot we can do m'afraid. But i'd certainly start shelling roads/airstrips etc to slow down the advance to Benghazi. The first 24 hours will be very important in testing the loyality of Gaddafi's troops. Once the planes start coming in i'm not so sure they'll be so willing to fight for him. We shall see.
Click to expand...

The opposition will be empowered to continue what they were doing until Qaddafi reversed their progress by indiscriminately bombing them. They are already emboldened with the passage of the resolution and will probably begin pushing him back provided the NLZ gets going quickly.
 
RedSky At Night said:
The difference being this isn't Iraq or Afghan. The enemy at this momment in time is very visible. Currently its not an urban warfare so planes will be able to inflict ALOT of damage on Gaddafis army.

If he then decides to adopt a change in tactics and use civilians as shields then theres not alot we can do m'afraid. But i'd certainly start shelling roads/airstrips etc to slow down the advance to Benghazi. The first 24 hours will be very important in testing the loyality of Gaddafi's troops. Once the planes start coming in i'm not so sure they'll be so willing to fight for him. We shall see.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's just that simple civilian intent is one thing, but military reality is often another. Logistics, intelligence, rules of engagement...

Also you mentioned
RedSky At Night said:
"...so planes will be able to inflict ALOT of damage on Gaddafis army."
Click to expand...
So is the talk still of just a no-fly zone, or active intervention? Honestly I'm OK with either, but a more active role is going to really ratchet up the risk of things backfiring. Civilian casualties as martyrs, captured airmen as hostages, innocent civilians as shields. Like probably most I also reckon an active role would crumble Qaddafi's army, but like most I might also have a naive notion of what his army is at this point. Mostly fickle mercenaries, loyal army units, tribal loyalties, etc. I honestly don't have a good idea.

What I am pretty sure of is that this prick has needed to go for a long time, and I'm happy the world seems to agree. Off with his head (if it were that simple).
 
Hopefully this will be another failure for Obama, what a clown three major military conflicts at once, good one buddy.

The West going there and killing G and his supporters isnt really much different in my mind than the Libyans killing the rebels, its their country and what goes on in their should be their business, I am 100% against intervention here.
 
Alex said:
Hopefully this will be another failure for Obama, what a clown three major military conflicts at once, good one buddy.

The West going there and killing Q and his supporters isnt really much different in my mind than the Libyans killing the rebels, its their country and what goes on in their should be their business, I am 100% against intervention here.
Click to expand...

So you'd stand by and just allow a country to butcher their civilians? You'd just shrug your shoulders and say "feck it, not my problem, let em die".
 
This is going on in many other countries and has many times over the past even 20 years and Africa with little intervention.

Gaddafi is fighting a civil war to remain in power and shock the people opposing him are dying, this has happened hundreds of times in history, intervening will affect the natural course of events and really is not in America's best interest in anyway, France et al. were always going to commit so why not sit this one out when clearly far more important things are going on.
 
Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it should happen again. You know that whole "never again" stuff after the Holocaust? We might not be uniform in our attempts to ensure that genocide and mass murder doesn't happen again, but sometimes we decide it's worthwhile and make an effort to prevent Srebenica, Babi Yar, etc all over again. Hopefully, this will ensure that civilians are protected and hopefully are able to oust Qaddafi.

Also, France and the UK are our allies and have backed us on many things. The whole ally thing is a two way street, which we often forget.

It's also in our interest to prevent oil supplies from becoming strained since the rise in cost would hurt the slowly rebuilding economy.
 
Sir Matt said:
Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it should happen again. You know that whole "never again" stuff after the Holocaust? We might not be uniform in our attempts to ensure that genocide and mass murder doesn't happen again, but sometimes we decide it's worthwhile and make an effort to prevent Srebenica, Babi Yar, etc all over again. Hopefully, this will ensure that civilians are protected and hopefully are able to oust Qaddafi.

Also, France and the UK are our allies and have backed us on many things. The whole ally thing is a two way street, which we often forget.

It's also in our interest to prevent oil supplies from becoming strained since the rise in cost would hurt the slowly rebuilding economy.
Click to expand...

This isnt like the Holocaust, so dont even try to compare it to that. He is killing people who want him dead, there is collateral damage which is awful, but this isnt a holocaust.
 
Alex said:
This is going on in many other countries and has many times over the past even 20 years and Africa with little intervention.

Gaddafi is fighting a civil war to remain in power and shock the people opposing him are dying, this has happened hundreds of times in history, intervening will affect the natural course of events and really is not in America's best interest in anyway, France et al. were always going to commit so why not sit this one out when clearly far more important things are going on.
Click to expand...

Maybe the goings on in other African countries and the West's lack of action over the years is one of the main arguments for intervention. Did you/would you have taken the same stance on Rwanda? The genocide in Rwanda was the culmination of a power struggle, much like Libya. Just because there are no obvious ethnic targets, it doesn't mean mass genocide can't take place.
 
ANWAR said:
A great interview with Noam Chomsky

Part 1

Part 2
Click to expand...


He seems to wrongly suggest that the people of Libya don't want the West to intervene. The only Libyans who don't want it seem to be Qaddafi loyalists, most of whom are probably too scared to speak their minds. Vast majority welcome it, including the Arab League and GCC. If Chomsky had it his way, Qaddafi would slaughter half his country just so Professor Noam could prove some academic point. On the other hand, he's correct about the West having propped up dictators for ages, but again, he squanders his earlier points by trying to bizarrely tie the middle east protests to the Wisconsin protest, not to mention the erroneous bit about how the people in Libya don't want the NFZ.
 
Libyan citizens in Malta has claimed that Gheddafi has been stocking corpses for days. If the UN forces strike he's planning to throw these corpses on the ground and claim that the UN are shooting on civilians.
 
devilish said:
Libyan citizens in Malta has claimed that Gheddafi has been stocking corpses for days. If the UN forces strike he's planning to throw these corpses on the ground and claim that the UN are shooting on civilians.
Click to expand...

It won't work. In today's day of satellite TV, smartphones with cameras, and social media, too much information will make its way to international audiences that will only serve to discredit his actions more. He's trying old school 1970s tactics in the age of the internet.
 
Raoul said:
It won't work. In today's day of satellite TV, smartphones with cameras, and social media, too much information will make its way to international audiences that will only serve to discredit his actions more. He's trying old school 1970s tactics in the age of the internet.
Click to expand...

It may work in Tripoli were Internet is strictly supervised.

He's also planning to make his anti aircraft artillery close to civilians houses and there are around 7000 African mercenaries in Tripoli alone keeping the people under check.
 
Raoul said:
He seems to wrongly suggest that the people of Libya don't want the West to intervene. The only Libyans who don't want it seem to be Qaddafi loyalists, most of whom are probably too scared to speak their minds. Vast majority welcome it
Click to expand...

This interview was conducted 11 days ago. The consensus was different then.
 
skeeta said:
This interview was conducted 11 days ago. The consensus was different then.
Click to expand...

It wasn't very different from what it is today. The opposition were calling for a NFZ and international recognition, which France gave them shortly thereafter.
 
Alex said:
Hopefully this will be another failure for Obama, what a clown three major military conflicts at once, good one buddy.
Click to expand...

Iraq and Afghanistan were/are major military conflicts. Enforcing a NFZ over a country with an antiquated air force with the support of the UK and France is not a major military conflict. (Protip: When your would-be adversary calls for a cease-fire two and a half milliseconds after you decide to use force, this is not a major military conflict.)
 
Alex said:
He is killing people who want him dead.
Click to expand...

That's okay is it?

How you asked yourself why they want him to go?
 
Alex said:
This is going on in many other countries and has many times over the past even 20 years and Africa with little intervention.

Gaddafi is fighting a civil war to remain in power and shock the people opposing him are dying, this has happened hundreds of times in history, intervening will affect the natural course of events and really is not in America's best interest in anyway, France et al. were always going to commit so why not sit this one out when clearly far more important things are going on.
Click to expand...

These posts make no sense.

People are getting slaughtered, we should stand by and watch just because it's happened before?

How does that make sense, forget the BS that gets put around it to try and make it sound less favourable, look at the bottom line. We have the power to stop all these people getting slaughtered. End of story.

How is that not a good idea then to stop that from happening?

Feck history, at some point it has to change, you think that standing by and letting people die is a good thing to do.

Yes other places that have it done to them should also receive the same level of treatment, but if they don't then it doesn't mean that we have to say feck you to everybody and just let them die. That's stupid, it doesn't lessen the importance of saving innocent lives just because another country didn't get it either.

Doing this will save lives, that's the right thing to do.

If your government ever starts randomly killing all of you and you appeal to us for aid, we can sit back and say 'Sorry Alex buddy, you said this was okay.... it was nice knowing you, hope they don't hurt you too much when they slaughter you.' ???? No I don't think so.
 
adexkola said:
The partiality of it just stings, that is all. Where were they during Sudan, Rwanda, the Congo, Ivory Coast, etc?
Click to expand...

Of course, but how does that detract away from the importance of this time?

It doesn't. Whatsoever. It makes a case for arguing that we should go to all these places in the future that's all. It should have absolutely nothing to do with the decision to do it here, unless that person is just being bitter, and denying someone aid just because someone else didn't get it.
 
Zarlak said:
Of course, but how does that detract away from the importance of this time?

It doesn't. Whatsoever. It makes a case for arguing that we should go to all these places in the future that's all. It should have absolutely nothing to do with the decision to do it here.
Click to expand...

No but it makes us look like hypocrites when we justify this by saying that the Arab League wanted it when half of the Arab League are engaging in not dissimilar practices at the moment. What are we going to do and what are we going to say to the rest of the world if Riyadh, Amman or Kuwait City fall to mediocrity?

When we get into the game of intervening in revolutions we are on dangerous ground for us and the country/ies involved, if a country cannot revert to democracy and liberty on its own steam as Libya presently can't then there is little to suggest that they can maintain it without extensive outside support well into the future either.
 
Team Brian GB said:
No but it makes us look like hypocrites when we justify this by saying that the Arab League wanted it when half of the Arab League are engaging in not dissimilar practices at the moment. What are we going to do and what are we going to say to the rest of the world if Riyadh, Amman or Kuwait City fall to mediocrity?

When we get into the game of intervening in revolutions we are on dangerous ground for us and the country/ies involved, if a country cannot revert to democracy and liberty on its own steam as Libya presently can't then there is little to suggest that they can maintain it without extensive outside support well into the future either.
Click to expand...

Libya could revert to Democracy, albeit at a more languid pace than say, Egypt. The problem is they have a dictator who is brutally and indiscriminately killing his own people. The humanitarian crisis will take precedence here, especially given Qaddafi's terrorist past.
 
adexkola said:
The partiality of it just stings, that is all. Where were they during Sudan, Rwanda, the Congo, Ivory Coast, etc?
Click to expand...

They should've done it in those cases as well. The fact that they didn't isn't a valid counterargument on why it shouldn't happen in Libya.
 
Raoul said:
Libya could revert to Democracy, albeit at a more languid pace than say, Egypt. The problem is they have a dictator who is brutally and indiscriminately killing his own people. The humanitarian crisis will take precedence here, especially given Qaddafi's terrorist past.
Click to expand...

The point I am making is we don't know if liberty and stability can be ensured in Libya under their own steam if they are not able to achieve it by themselves without outside assistance.
 
Team Brian GB said:
The point I am making is we don't know if liberty and stability can be ensured in Libya under their own steam if they are not able to achieve it by themselves without outside assistance.
Click to expand...

Yet on the other hand you do know that it can't be ensured without it.

So there you go, on one hand no, on the other maybe. Maybe is better than no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.