Libya headed for civil war? Update: Gadhafi dead

[Flame Of Liberty]

Does anyone have a good read about the rebels? One has to wonder whether they will be (once Gadhafi is gone) more partial to say...french oil industry or...perhaps al qaeda?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

I'm honestly surprised you're drawing parallels between the two wars. The circumstances and justification are so different. Surely you recognize that?

Of course there are differences, as RU ranted earlier.

But here is the salient point I am making whether anyone agrees or not is irrelevant...

The similarities are this..

Long time dictator that has at times been friendly with Western democracies for whatever reasons.

Same dictator who has murdered and plundered his own people for decades as well as committing heinous and aggressive acts against other countries and innocent people.

Both needed to be removed but would never be unless there was help from the outside world, particularly the US/Britain allegiance.

The UN backed removing one but not the other...why? Tell me the difference when the bottom line is that the guy is committing atrocities against people that simply have no way to fight back with any real chance of defeating the guy who controls the military.

If the answer is because the 'reasons" are different, I will respond that "not really". The bottom line is that all these guys in any part of the world should be blasted to kingdom come if the ability to do so exists. This isnt about overthrowing any old government, these guys are not representative of what their people want, are owed and fully deserve.

If it is OK to go after Khadafi for what he has done, and Hussein was doing alot of the same things regardless of the revisionist history mentioned previously, then the ends justify the means in both cases...no?

If the argument is "its a different President now"....then that's laughable. The end result is the same and whether the people of either country is better off afterwards or not, at least it is up to them to decide that. Something that simply could not happen otherwise.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by T@T

Amazing how shallow people can be slamming the United States. Of couse they are not perfect but :

Sometimes I don't think a lot us (Canadians) really appreciate how lucky we realy are have a military power like the U.S.A in our backyard...I'd hate to think what our life would probably be like without them.

Pointless to speculate (given that it would be an entirely different world), but I'm thinking we'd be nuclear power and Avro would still be around.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

Pointless to speculate (given that it would be an entirely different world), but I'm thinking we'd be nuclear power and Avro would still be around.

Well even with the American's as our closest ally and partner we were to an extent a nuclear power. We had air to air, surface to surface, tactical aircraft fitted nuclear bombs and nuclear antisubmarine depth charges.


And Avro would probably have still been around, but I don't know if we would have been able to export enough to continue military development of airplanes.

And while the Arrow was an exceptional plane, I tend to think that as it grows older in our minds its capabilities tend to get exagerated.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And while the Arrow was an exceptional plane, I tend to think that as it grows older in our minds its capabilities tend to get exagerated.

No kidding. You hear some people talk about it now and you would be expecting it to destroy a squadron of F-22's with just one aircraft.

[burn_this_city]

Plus if we didnt have that massive brain drain after the program was cancelled would the US have made it to the moon?

Back on topic.. No word from Gaddafi after that missile strike on his compound. Maybe we got lucky?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The UN backed removing one but not the other...why? Tell me the difference when the bottom line is that the guy is committing atrocities against people that simply have no way to fight back with any real chance of defeating the guy who controls the military.

The biggest difference is that Kaddafi was using his millitary and planes in a very obvious manner. If he would have kept to the "low-key" torture and killings, I doubt that the UN would have even paid attention.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by calculoso

The biggest difference is that Kaddafi was using his millitary and planes in a very obvious manner. If he would have kept to the "low-key" torture and killings, I doubt that the UN would have even paid attention.

Agreed....but that goes back to my original point that the UN backing this doesn't make it any more legitimate...unless doing it openly is somehow worse than doing it quietly. In the end, 10's of thousands were flat out murdered....either way.

Remember...Hussein bombed his own people ( well not his people but ones that were Iraqi) with chemical weapons, but somehow that wasn't addressed by the UN either as far as agreeing to take military action.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Back on topic.. No word from Gaddafi after that missile strike on his compound. Maybe we got lucky?

Let's hope.

[FlameOn]

Amazing how anti-west the Arab countries are... after aggressively lobbying for the NFZ, the Arab league's president Moussa is now saying the NFZ has gone beyond what the league has wanted and is opposed to how it was implemented.

How can the AL expect there to be no civilian casualties? Gaddafi was using the pro-government protestors as human shields for some of his complexes afterall.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...118324124.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Its not as much anti-west as a lack of understanding about what it takes to establish a no fly zone. As politicians they don't want the explosions or the planes spiraling out of the skies.

Establishing a no fly zone is messy nasty work and it does involve the destruction of anti air infrastructure and it always ends up in the destruction of a countries ability to wage an air war.

And politicians hate the idea of collateral damage, so when the UN forces start bombing vehicles and troops who are trying to snuff out civillians you're going to get video of bodies that are burned beyond recognition and bleaching in the sun.

I don't think its as much anti-western sentiment as it is about a misconception around whats going to happen.

At the end of the day there is no such thing as a surgical bombing strike, there is less then a 10% chance that the bombs that you're dropping aren't going to kill civillians

War is a politicians greatest ambition, but its also their greatest moral outrage.

[worth]

And also, they are not involved really in any decision making.

As soon as the resolution passed, the French went into bombing mode. They didn't even tell the US that they were going to start sorties, they just did it. And that pisses the AL off. If the French aren't going to tell the US about it, they certainly aren't going to tell the AL.

The AL can't keep up with the Euro/US powers in any capacity. They want to be involved, and the only real way for them to be involved is through decision making. I think that's where they've got their panties in a knot. They feel all they've done now is give Euro/US free reign to bomb the crap out of Libya, and that's why they've got cold feet.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its funny, I left for work this morning after watching the story about the cruise missile strike on Gaddafi's compound, and the confirmation that it wasn't an American missile.

You think that someones finger slipped again?

[Barnes]

Canadian jets get in on the action.

Citing defence sources, The Canadian Press reports the six CF-18 fighter jets stationed in Italy did not drop any ordnance, but rather escorted fighters of another nation.

http://www.dp-news.com/pages/detail....rticleid=78646

The Americans are looking at giving up command in the next few days but Arab Countries don't want to fly under a NATO led force.

NATO could command the coalition's no-fly mission in Libya, but some Arab nations are hesitant to fly under a NATO banner, which has held up the move, said one official, who asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of negotiations.

The coalition has 10 announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain and the United States.

[CaptainCrunch]

I kind of figured that the Canadians would get bomber escort missions. Even though the CF-18 is a very good air to ground platform, I doubt that there is much left to hit on the ground at the moment.

And I find it sad that the Arab countries can't get over their stance and get with the program.

But to me its meh because they're fairly worthless anyways.

[VladtheImpaler]

Belgium has a military? Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle...

[Leon]

The AL's indecisiveness continues to amaze me.

On a brief side note, things are getting real in Yemen. Supposedly 'loyalist' tanks surrounding the presidential palace.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Belgium has a military? Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle...

In terms of size and capability they are pretty close to what Canada has wrapped in a much smaller country.

They have a solid reputation as pilots as well.

In terms of army they're based around a light armoured concept using the really good Pirahana APC

Their airforce is equivalent to Canada's with 110 F-16's

Their naval component is much smaller with 2 patrol frigates.

[IliketoPuck]

CC, when we are talking about Qatar and some other Arab countries being involved in the NFZ, what is their actual involvement? Do they actually have modern enough equipment to contribute, or is it more symbolic than anything?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Agreed....but that goes back to my original point that the UN backing this doesn't make it any more legitimate...unless doing it openly is somehow worse than doing it quietly. In the end, 10's of thousands were flat out murdered....either way.

Remember...Hussein bombed his own people ( well not his people but ones that were Iraqi) with chemical weapons, but somehow that wasn't addressed by the UN either as far as agreeing to take military action.

The big difference for me, is that the Iraqi people hadn't broken out in a massive revolt. From what I remember the Iraqi's had a pretty good standard of living and probably lived an alright life if they kept their heads down and were part of the majority ethnic population. The USA had a chance to take the moral high ground when there was a revolt by the Kurds and I believe the Shiat in the Delta after Desert Storm, but they passed.

As the saying goes 'you can take a horse to water but you can't make them drink'.
For the most part the Iraqi's weren't thirsty, the Libyans are.