The Libyan uprising

Overheal

something like that.

AlekSmart

Jonny7: Modern dictators in these countries can keep an entire pop under control, under fear with fear, state tv, iron control of army, etc, as I said before this isn't the French revolution - its actually relatively easy when you think about it

All quite true,especially in the cases of countries such as NK,Iran,Zimbabwe and others ytou mention.

Yet I am minded to recognize the existence within Libya,up to a fortnight ago of a very substantial ex-patriate community of westerners and other cultures all workin (profitably) on a variety of high-tech civilian and military projects throughout the country.

The fact too that many of these ex-pats were long term Libya hands living in the general community also makes me a little less prone to subscribe to the "raving lunatic Dictator" line of reasoning.

For sure,if I was a juiced up wild eyed mad yoke of a Dictator,I`d have had a couple of hundred of them paleskinned Europeans bundled off to a remote compound far outside the range of any Amphibious Battlegroup that just happened to be in the area.....:)

http://www.bataan.navy.mil/default.aspx

Manic Moran

But I have no idea. Help me figure this out How is the marine involvement not crossing the line drawn by resolution 1973? Nevermind any relevant US law.

Two possibilities come to mind. One is that the resolution says "protect civilians"and is not specific as to how. (does it say air power only?) The other is that it's not intended for a combat role at all. As Poccington alludes to, Marine assault ships are also the vessels in the US Naval inventory which are pre loaded as standard with humanitarian supplies. Which makes sense, as they're designed to get gear from sea to shore quickly and under unusual conditions. It's very possible that this group is being deployed to deal with the civil problems, not combat.

NTM

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

All quite true,especially in the cases of countries such as NK,Iran,Zimbabwe and others ytou mention.

Yet I am minded to recognize the existence within Libya,up to a fortnight ago of a very substantial ex-patriate community of westerners and other cultures all workin (profitably) on a variety of high-tech civilian and military projects throughout the country.

The fact too that many of these ex-pats were long term Libya hands living in the general community also makes me a little less prone to subscribe to the "raving lunatic Dictator" line of reasoning.

For sure,if I was a juiced up wild eyed mad yoke of a Dictator,I`d have had a couple of hundred of them paleskinned Europeans bundled off to a remote compound far outside the range of any Amphibious Battlegroup that just happened to be in the area.....:)

http://www.bataan.navy.mil/default.aspx

Iran, Zimbabwe, even Iraq was full of expats.. mostly specialists working in the country. The country needs to function, oil needs to be drilled. When the **** went down, they all left instantly... ALL left, even the immigrants, that should tell you a lot.

During the mass exodus, many were interviewed as they boarded Brit ships or arrived in the various airports, some of the expats were caught up and killed, and almost all said they had seen locals or friends being killed. This has all been well reported and documented.

For awhile it looked like he might slip away, unfortunately that door is closed. He's chosen to fight, as have his sons, and they are using every tool at their disposal - his youngest son is the head of a 40,000 strong paramilitary. They burned their own soldiers for refusing to follow orders, many defected, but they have strong control with mercenaries, basically private militias, and a lot of nasty military hardware.

Every immigrant, every expat, every foreign observer caught up, every news team, every doctor, every captured news team are all reporting in absolute unison of the events that have transpired since the revolt actually began.

You could have very easily gone on a lovely holiday to Germany in 1938, and said, like many did, that it was a great society - yet there was the state media, the torture, disappearances, murders, the absolute control, etc, etc before the decent into madness.

What were people saying about Egypt? a nice place? were they going on about Mubarak? his internal security services? did they mention the people that were kept locked in elecontrically sealed cells blindfolded for ten years? my parents were there last year for quite awhile, not a mention. Yet he was ordering his military to open fire, ordering tank crews, to actually open fire on unarmed civilians.. luckily for them the military refused. If he'd had a firmer grip like Gaddafi, they would not have refused so easily.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Perhaps, but I'd like to know the official (and legal) lines about that. I assume they would have to carry out very specific missions, like sorties, and not have general secure and patrol type situations. They'd also if you ask me (im a layman) want to not be stationed in Libya, but rather as an Amphibious force remain stationed off the coast except for when they are actually performing a role.

But I have no idea. Help me figure this out How is the marine involvement not crossing the line drawn by resolution 1973? Nevermind any relevant US law.

Units that go in and go out are all measures necessary.
They're not occupiers because they go out again.
When I read 1973 and saw how it included the all measures,I could see it allowing that and rightly so.
It will allow them to throw a few grenades at tanks that use the human shielding tactic of bringing tanks into towns where they are not wanted.
Towns where said tanks are shelling civilians.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess the line is,in out in a few hours, days or weeks with a specific mission to take out gadaffi's henchmen

Feb 8 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rallied US troops during a visit to Italy yesterday. Any war with Iraq would last “six days, maybe six weeks” but certainly less than six months, Rumsfeld told troops during a visit to the US Air Force’s 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano in northern Italy.

opinion guy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Feb 8 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rallied US troops during a visit to Italy yesterday. Any war with Iraq would last “six days, maybe six weeks” but certainly less than six months, Rumsfeld told troops during a visit to the US Air Force’s 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano in northern Italy.

Yes because Iraq and 2003 is exactly the same as Libya in 2011. EXACTLY!

Zubeneschamali

opinion guy wrote: »

Yes because Iraq and 2003 is exactly the same as Libya in 2011. EXACTLY!

Iraq isn't the same as Afghanistan or Vietnam either.

So let's invade Saudi Arabia! It'll be a cakewalk!

Jonny7

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Iraq isn't the same as Afghanistan or Vietnam either.

So let's invade Saudi Arabia! It'll be a cakewalk!

Likewise it can be said - lets never intervene, other countries affairs are their own

except for bailouts of course
and propping up of the banks so we don't go back a century
and because of the whole world war 2 thing - ethnic cleansing
and charity and aid
and election observers
and trade barriers, sanctions and embargoes..

On a serious note, the situation in Bahrain, Saudi and Yemen is clearly not on the scale of Libya (yet) which in itself is again small compared to what happened in Rwanda

There's no blanket response to all these diversely different situations combined with the failures of Vietnam/Iraq + Western/Russian/Chinese interference for monetary gain - its based on so many factors

However constantly drawing conclusions with a pre-emptive attack based on lies, manipulation, strategic agenda (Iraq 03) and perhaps one of the ugliest conflicts from the Cold War (Vietnam) can thrown into the same box as saying we should never give to African charities, because all the funds went to a dictator in Kenya in the 80's.

opinion guy

Jonny7 wrote: »

On a serious note, the situation in Bahrain, Saudi and Yemen is clearly not on the scale of Libya (yet) which in itself is again small compared to what happened in Rwanda

Hmm I dunno. There's a lot of **** going on in Bahrain thats not made it into the mainstream Western press.

I really think the US need to lay down the law there - thou not militarily since they can't really as they are allies. But the yanks should seriously be applying pressure up to and including breaking their alliance imho.

Here we have a thread with lots of info that didn't make the mainsteam news here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70714686

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

Iran, Zimbabwe, even Iraq was full of expats.. mostly specialists working in the country. The country needs to function, oil needs to be drilled. When the **** went down, they all left instantly... ALL left, even the immigrants, that should tell you a lot. ......

....For awhile it looked like he might slip away, unfortunately that door is closed. He's chosen to fight, as have his sons, and they are using every tool at their disposal - his youngest son is the head of a 40,000 strong paramilitary. They burned their own soldiers for refusing to follow orders, many defected, but they have strong control with mercenaries, basically private militias, and a lot of nasty military hardware.
......

I wish the Colonel would open a Boards.ie account,cos it seems as if I`m operating as his defence counsel here

I`m assuming he and his family/supporters are staying to fight because they are Libyan ?

They might not be "our type" of Libyan but thats what marks the nature of the human beast,tribalism.

It will indeed be interesting when the "Coalition" finally does a Saadam H on Muammar G (and they surely will) what type of regime will be left for the Libyan people ("our type" of Libyan people) to enjoy.

Doubtless we will hear of free and fair supervised elections and the emergence of truly Libyan types to run the country independently of outside interference or influence...?....won`t we..?

Thus far all I`m seeing is a bog-standard outside intervention in what was/is now a viscious Civil War.

Thus far I`m not seeing,perhaps due to not having enough committment to go there and see for myself,hard evidence of direct coordinated military attacks on Civilian targets.

I do believe that by this stage,if such evidence existed we would have had wall-to-wall Sky News coverage of it

opinion guy

AlekSmart wrote: »

I do believe that by this stage,if such evidence existed we would have had wall-to-wall Sky News coverage of it

You apparently missed the part where your beloved colonel is controlling what the media can see

Euroland

Jonny7 wrote: »

During the mass exodus, many were interviewed as they boarded Brit ships or arrived in the various airports, some of the expats were caught up and killed, and almost all said they had seen locals or friends being killed. This has all been well reported and documented.

For awhile it looked like he might slip away, unfortunately that door is closed. He's chosen to fight, as have his sons, and they are using every tool at their disposal - his youngest son is the head of a 40,000 strong paramilitary. They burned their own soldiers for refusing to follow orders, many defected, but they have strong control with mercenaries, basically private militias, and a lot of nasty military hardware.

Every immigrant, every expat, every foreign observer caught up, every news team, every doctor, every captured news team are all reporting in absolute unison of the events that have transpired since the revolt actually began.

Apparently you watch too much Western propaganda machine and live in your own virtual world, away from the reality.

Euroland

Jonny7 wrote: »

When the **** went down, they all left instantly... ALL left, even the immigrants, that should tell you a lot.

Thousands of foreign doctors are still there and give completely different view on the events in Libya.

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

I wish the Colonel would open a Boards.ie account,cos it seems as if I`m operating as his defence counsel here

I`m assuming he and his family/supporters are staying to fight because they are Libyan ?

Read Eurolands posts very striking similarity between his statements and Gaddafi's, uncanny actually!

Nothing to do with being Libyan - I mean his beloved Ukrainian nurse legged it, childhood friends who held various international posts fled, quite a few fled - a lot closest to him have blood on their hands already, far too many enemies - you don't run a closed society with arbitrary arrests, disappearances, torture, etc without having more than a few enemies - fleeing is risky, but only if their own domestic situation becomes untenable

Saddam stayed, his sons stayed, many closest to him stayed, and were either killed or put on trial - and quite rightly, they were absolute butchers, I strongly disagreed with the Iraq 03 war, but there's no denying what that man was doing to his own people, to see Gaddafi go from cold to 'hot' bears all those hallmarks, again different situations but extraordinary what humans will do to hold onto power - and if you think either of them are bad, read about some of the Roman leaders - the sack of Carthage, beyond brutal

Look for a book called Nabeel's Song - shortlisted for the Costa Biography award - very good account of the horrors of the time (under Iraq dictatorship)

Anyway am wandering off topic, keeping a close eye on the worrying situation in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria too - note the usual suspects - State TV, state of emergency for 30/40 odd years, leaders with incredibly long terms

I feel in Europe we have already been through these stages, slowly and painfully become enlightened, adopted democracy and will never look back to the dark ages - however parts of the world are still at various stages, and some of them unfortunately still ruled by families and men who never want to let go of power and rule their people by fear and threat.

Stev_o

Iv basically given up on the "statistics" that the media are reavealing to the world since they just dont make sense given the context of what's going on.


The 100 civilains killed in the space of a week by artillery fire in Misrata defies all logical sense. For a starts Misrata has a population of half a milllion and it's central region is extremely dense. If there is in fact artillery fire being direct into this town you'd expected 1000's of deaths on a daily bases not 100 total in a week. To put that in perspecctive in Omagh bombing 29 people were killed with 200 plus injured for one explosion.

Just doesn't add up.

AlekSmart

opinion guy wrote: »

You apparently missed the part where your beloved colonel is controlling what the media can see

I can`t admit to harbouring any deep emotion for the bould Colonel,certainly not anything approaching a "beloved" nature.

I`d have little difficulty in accepting that he was not the full shilling (dinar?) in many ways,but then sanity is`nt something I`v come to depend on finding in any Political figure,East or West.

The issue of Ghadaffi "controlling" what the media can see is still open for debate I feel.

Certainly the Major News Agencies are prefacing their broadcasts from Government held areas with the disclaimer that it`s supervised by the Authorities.

However that has not prevented some quite fortright reportage from some of the heavy hitters of the News stations.

Equally the fewer media members operating within rebel held areas have filed reports on many operations which,whilst graphic and violent in nature,have not outlined the mass civilian "extermination" which remains a central core reasoning behind the Coalitions military actions.

True media control can only come from the REALLY despotic rulers such as Pol Pot,Kim Il Bung or others of that ilk,but I`m unconvinced that my alledgedly "beloved" robe wearing Colonel has as yet achieved that status .

Euroland

Yesterday late night I was watching the CNBC channel with special report about the war in Libya. Several US military experts were discussing how to resolve the current situation in Libya. At the end they all agreed that solution should be quick and include ground invasion. They also agreed on 2 main scenarios:

1) Assassination of Kaddafi and his family members and replacing them with “the right guys” (pro-American puppets), who would rule over all Libya (in this case Mahmoud Jibril probably would be the right candidate). This might mean ground invasion in Tripoli, probably with Special Forces, backed by the Marines.

2) Splitting Libya into two countries, but securing oil fields and oil terminals beforehand. In this case US would need to invade between Misrata and Ajdabiya, and make incursions deep inside into Libya, to secure the oil fields.

They said that the second scenario is preferred.

So, should we wait for the ground invasion then?

Overheal

Euroland wrote: »

So, should we wait for the ground invasion then?

Sure. If it happens, as it stands, that would be Illegal/against the UN Sanction, so we'll have to see if that unfolds. That's not to say a follow-up resolution cannot be passed, but if Obama wants to be a 1-term president, sure, he can push that agenda. There's already some question as to whether Biden, based on his own claims in 2007, needs to start encouraging impeachment procedures as Obama never consulted congress before taking this military action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA

@Manic: You said something about no harriers earlier? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iIPq5j2Yxw&feature=related sexy, sexy VTOL

Manic Moran

Stev_o wrote: »

Iv basically given up on the "statistics" that the media are reavealing to the world since they just dont make sense given the context of what's going on.


The 100 civilains killed in the space of a week by artillery fire in Misrata defies all logical sense. For a starts Misrata has a population of half a milllion and it's central region is extremely dense. If there is in fact artillery fire being direct into this town you'd expected 1000's of deaths on a daily bases not 100 total in a week. To put that in perspecctive in Omagh bombing 29 people were killed with 200 plus injured for one explosion.

Just doesn't add up.

Amazing what a difference in a decade or two makes.

We have become used to the concept of anything over, oh, maybe two dozen being unusual in combat. Nine US soldiers killed in a firefight in Afghanistan is practically a national scandal. It would be a footnote in 1952. Six people are killed in Bahrain, and there are statements that it's as bad as Libya. We expect to be able to lob dozens of bombs or artillery shells with pinpoint accuracy and not kill more than one or two people that we're not supposed to be, and worse, hold other nations to that standard as well, even though they don't spend the same amount of money on such technology.

Put bluntly, we in the West have pretty much forgotten what a real war is and just how nasty they are. Instead 'slightly more unpleasant than we would like' is suddenly categorised as 'horrible and horrendous.' We've lost our sense of perspective.

If it happens, as it stands, that would be Illegal/against the UN Sanction

Depends on how you define 'occupation force.' A sweep or maybe opening up a humanitarian corridor may not count.

NTM

metrovelvet

Manic Moran wrote: »

Amazing what a difference in a decade or two makes.

We have become used to the concept of anything over, oh, maybe two dozen being unusual in combat. Nine US soldiers killed in a firefight in Afghanistan is practically a national scandal. It would be a footnote in 1952. Six people are killed in Bahrain, and there are statements that it's as bad as Libya. We expect to be able to lob dozens of bombs or artillery shells with pinpoint accuracy and not kill more than one or two people that we're not supposed to be, and worse, hold other nations to that standard as well, even though they don't spend the same amount of money on such technology.

Put bluntly, we in the West have pretty much forgotten what a real war is and just how nasty they are. Instead 'slightly more unpleasant than we would like' is suddenly categorised as 'horrible and horrendous.' We've lost our sense of perspective.



Depends on how you define 'occupation force.' A sweep or maybe opening up a humanitarian corridor may not count.

NTM

It would be interesting to consider with all this advancement in military precision, and less mortal consequences, will we now be less hesitant to get involved with to start wars [or police actions.]

Wildlife Actor

Haven't read all the posts yet but are there any Libyans in this thread?

I spoke to a few who are all anti Gadaffi. They absolutely hate him.

There's so much at stake here that the UN needs to be clear that there is either genocide or that there is a majority of the population in favour of getting rid of him combined with human rights abuses or some downright bad stuff. So is it really the case that he is ruling with a small minority of te people?

On airstrikes. how can these possibly work without either great bloodshed or general ineffectiveness? Surely the one thing the allied forces are saying they don't want to do (Killing Gadaffi) is the one thing that they should do (Mossad woluld have the job done in a few days with some Irish passports :eek:). After all, he said he'd fight to the death...

Manic Moran

metrovelvet wrote: »

It would be interesting to consider with all this advancement in military precision, and less mortal consequences, will we now be less hesitant to get involved with to start wars [or police actions.]

That has been my position for some time. The belief that we can get involved in wars with much less bloodshed (be this an accurate belief or not) does seem to remove one of the restraints we have in getting involved in a military action in the first place.

I personally take it a stage further, and think that a lot of the rules resulting in trying to make warfare 'civilised' or 'humane' are misguided. Maybe if we had more comments like Wellington's "There is nothing so terrible as a battle won, save a battle lost" or Lee's "It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it" precisely because they're nasty, brutish, terrible things might also give people a little more pause to think before taking an action. You're going around trying to blow the bejesus out of each other, there's not much civilised or humane about it.

NTM

Wolfe Tone

What is clear is that there are a great deal of Libyans who like Gadaffi

A Dub in Glasgo

Manic Moran wrote: »

That has been my position for some time. The belief that we can get involved in wars with much less bloodshed (be this an accurate belief or not) does seem to remove one of the restraints we have in getting involved in a military action in the first place.

I personally take it a stage further, and think that a lot of the rules resulting in trying to make warfare 'civilised' or 'humane' are misguided. Maybe if we had more comments like Wellington's "There is nothing so terrible as a battle won, save a battle lost" or Lee's "It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it" precisely because they're nasty, brutish, terrible things might also give people a little more pause to think before taking an action. You're going around trying to blow the bejesus out of each other, there's not much civilised or humane about it.

NTM

But it is cool to look at shock and awe, precision bombing just like playing the Xbox or Playstation!

Euroland

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What is clear is that there are a great deal of Libyans who like Gadaffi

Of course there are millions of Libyans who like Kaddafi, prior to this aggression the price of petrol under Kaddafi was 0.07 Euro per liter, the state was giving 20 year interest free mortgages, a lot of subsidies and free university education, even abroad; taxes were very low and about 1 month ago Kaddafi canceled all the remaining taxes in the country and Libya became effectively an off-shore state. New South Korean SUVs where starting from 4-5 thousand Euros, etc.

opinion guy

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What is clear is that there are a great deal of Libyans who like Gadaffi

That's not clear at all.

metrovelvet

I know a lot of Cubans who hate Castro. Doesnt stop the rest of the world from loving him, giving tourist money to Cuba and wearing Guevara tee shirts.

Nodin

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What is clear is that there are a great deal of Libyans who like Gadaffi

Out of a crowd supporting the Colonel, there will be undoubtedly genuine supporters. There will also be people there out of fear. Others will back him because they think he's the winning horse and others again because they fear being held accountable for what they did for his regime. How exactly the crowd is divided amongst those groups, I don't think anyone could answer.

Jonny7

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What is clear is that there are a great deal of Libyans who like Gadaffi

I'm afraid thats complete and utter nonsense

How did you come to that conclusion?

Please god don't say Libyan state tv