AnimeSuki Forums

Asuras · 2011-03-21, 21:32

Your thoughts on the US' air raid upon Libyan soil.

Good or bad? Uncalled for or, "It's about damn time?"

I guess I'll open up.

Personally, I feel this is the right thing to do. I could get into the whole tradition of America's history to promote democracy and freedom of the people, but that's not exactly a very good reason for sending ooh-gobs of money worth in missiles overseas.

What I do believe however is that Kadafi's reign of terror upon his own people is terrorism. Whether or not he was involved in the Lockerbie bombing doesn't matter (well, technically it does) when he's killing his own people. Peaceful protests did not deserve militaristic reprimands. His actions were horrific and his rule has been worse.

I can safely assume that many American's are on the fence, considering our years in the Middle East. However (as much as I'm war-tired) this seems justified and right. I don't know about you, but the Libyan peoples deserve just as much relief and protection as the poor Japanese after the quake and tsunami. The Libyan's certainly can't do it alone, and they deserve help.

We should be there to help as such.
So long as it remains limited in scope and lasts "Days" as Obama has predicted, as opposed to weeks or months (god forbid years) of course.

Ithekro · 2011-03-21, 21:47

I am still unclear about who is supporting what and how far.
We've wanted Kadafi dead for decades and I remember him in the news a bit while growing up. I have no tears for the man should he fall. My wonderance is just how much real support is the United Nations going to get from the Arab League. Are they really going to support this, or is this some kind of false face for some other means to discredit the Western World again in the eyes of the Muslim World. What little I have seen so far gives a wide differences in views and thus I can't pin one down over another. Plus there seems to be some kind of split in NATO about just who is suppose to do what. Italy and Turkey seems to have different opinions on the matter. France (of all nations) seems to want to go all out on Libya. The US is trying to be a support role rather than the main force, pushing NATO, France, and Britain to do it themselves. Germany is playing the skeptic in NATO. Russia is worried to death about national sovereignty. And China is being sort of quiet.

Also there is the thought that the rebels might not have a chance at this point unless supported in a more indepth way, which most people want to avoid getting into yet another ground war.

The United States however is very, very good at waging an air war followed by a quick ground war against a military force. Look at both Gulf Wars. The military actions were quick and deceisive. Iraq's military power and infrustruction was gutted rapidly with minimal civilian casualties (compared to World War II operation of this kind at least). What the United States is not good at, and frankly no one's military is good at, is dealing with sustained insurrections. Only the United Kingdom has managed to put down a modern insurrection that I am aware of, and that took a long time to do (in Malaysia I believe...they left after it ended). Ironic perhaps that the United States, a country that used insurgent tacts to gain independance has its own tactics used against them and can't deal with it effectively. (Not exactly, since I don't think Washington used road bombs and suicide tactics against the British)

SaintessHeart · 2011-03-21, 21:48

The US has no fucking choice because everyone is looking for them to act.

Libya produces a significant portion of the world's oil, and having a civil strife means that international oil supplies will be cut off. And with that, nobody wants to get their hands dirty to actually do something important, not even China, who consumes a significant portion of the world's oil supplies as much as US.

It is just a whole matter of political posturing and responsibility shoving. Otherwise why did the Arab League and the UN Security Council took so long to act on an imposed no-fly zone over Libya?

This is retarded. Almost everyone wants to have well-priced oil at below $80, but nobody is willing to step in to keep the price there.

Asuras · 2011-03-21, 21:52

I was really wondering why the no-fly zone took so long to be actually initiated. It seemed like a black and white concept to me.

You do it. Just start it up. Get it done.

I only assumed people were indecisive over who would be later attributed with as the spark of the flame. I never thought of it that way Saint.

Then again, it seems like we're splitting up this whole deal. US taking to the skies and several others hitting it up with ground troops. In the end everyone wants some credit.

Ithekro · 2011-03-21, 22:12

The United States has very little intrest in Libya anymore. We get very little oil out of the place (I'm not sure if it is 3% of what the US uses or 3% of Libya's production goes to the US) and since 2004, they stopped their nuclear programs and the like. It was a non-issue for America. However for Europe, Russia, and China, this is an issue, since they get much more oil out on that place.

The basic problem with getting the no-fly zone up was two things. One, the Western Powers have been getting the Muslin World upset for a long time. To some, any attack on any muslim nation is a call for all out holy war it seems...even if said country was their blood enemy. Western Powers are starting to try the talk softly and carry a big stick approach again, but haven't got talk softly part down yet because half of our politicians and talking heads are blow hards and loud mouths.

The second problem is figuring out if their is someone to support. In a rebellion that has a chance to defeat a sitting national governement, there need to be basically a shadow governement or a rebel leader that the outside powers can back and thus have someone to support. Also if you are going to support a rebellion, you need to have a hint that that rebellion might win, or else you are just throwing money and lives away for nothing. In the American Civil War the French and British were really, really close to backing the Confederate States of America. Why? Because it looked like the rebels might have a shot at winning in 1862. Or at least winning a campaign that would keep the Union out of Virginia long enough for the Europeans to send troops or support to tell the United States to back off (which they could do back then...France wasn't weak in the 1860s and the United Kingdom was the largest power on the planet at the time). This was also way France backed the United States in the Revolutionary War. Washington was able to score a few victories against the English and since the English were also France's enemy, sure way not support the American colonials. In Libya, the United Nations waited until the rebels had some victories and I guess some sort of opposition governemnt to negotiate with. Trouble is, by the time the UN was able to get the Arab League onboard, and find some sort of rebel governement to talk with, the rebels started losing. I wonder if they won't lose entirely within a month without a UN backed ground force.

Asuras · 2011-03-21, 22:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

talk softly and carry a big stick

I believe the term was "Walk softly and carry a big stick."

As for all else...
I don't really believe the US needs a "rebel leader" to support. It seems to me that a needy peoples and terrorizing governments is enough to send help in the form of explosives. A lot of them.
This "shadow government" is unnecessary. So long as several powers are in a third-world country to help, the odds of the rebellion winning is likely quite high. Worrying about the victor is pointless now.

Ithekro · 2011-03-21, 22:20

Funny is that I had it as "walk" at first, then misremembered it and changed it, thinking or something else.

Thing about victory is that you want to know who you will deal with once the war ends. We've discovered through the Cold War and its aftermath that you can easily setup someone that is worse than the people you are taking out. Or even worse, the rebellion wins the war only to desolve into a greater conflict between different rebel or tribal groups that spend the next ten years killing each other off. Or allowing basically anarchy to rule after we finish the place off.

There are somedays I think the entire Middle East and North Africa cannot rule themselves, they spent thousands of years under one empire or another that they have no sense of nations or self-rule. Perhaps even nationality isn't effective since many seem to be tribal based first, nation second...or third even, Islam being first or second I guess. Maybe they do need to be under some kind of overall leadership..even if it is only to get them all all hate something together, but be under someone's thumb at the same time. (long lost of Empires, Greek, Roman, Eastern Roman, finally the Ottoman Empire until about 1920.)

milan kyuubi · 2011-03-21, 22:30

The US have no right to do this.

Asuras · 2011-03-21, 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Funny is that I had it as "walk" at first, then misremembered it and changed it, thinking or something else.

Thing about victory is that you want to know who you will deal with once the war ends. We've discovered through the Cold War and its aftermath that you can easily setup someone that is worse than the people you are taking out. Or even worse, the rebellion wins the war only to desolve into a greater conflict between different rebel or tribal groups that spend the next ten years killing each other off. Or allowing basically anarchy to rule after we finish the place off.

I understand you. It's always unnerving to wait for the new regime to take a seat in such unstable countries. We can only hope that the aftermath dissolves into a better tomorrow for Libya, but right now they need protection, good or bad future.

Vexx · 2011-03-21, 22:39

Its really a Brit-French-US affair with some symbolic appearances by other forces. If any of the players had not bought into it (especially the Arab League) - it would not have happened.

So its kind of misleading to call a "US Raid"...

Quote:

The US have no right to do this.

Gaddafi has no right to do what he's doing... so it just kind of sucks in several directions.

Asuras · 2011-03-21, 22:45

Right. How do I get the title to change?

Ithekro · 2011-03-21, 22:47

According to the United Nations, the US has every right to do this...mostly because the US isn't the one doing things, it is the UN that is doing things. 10-0 vote on the Security Council says there will be a no-fly zone and to make that effective, Libya's Anti-Aircraft capabilities and aircraft must be nuetralized. After that, I have no idea what France and Britain have in mind. The United States is going along for the ride since it is still expected of us to do so.

Vexx · 2011-03-21, 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asuras

Right. How do I get the title to change?

Report the original post to a mod and explain you'd really like a title change so the thread doesn't derail. They hate derail....

WanderingKnight · 2011-03-21, 23:04

Something is surely amiss, as with any war started under the pretense of happy rosy ideals and fluff. I'm not familiar with Libyan politics and how Kadafi got to power but I would surely be surprised if there isn't more to the dictator that had so many underhanded deals with several EU nations, especially Italy.

I can hardly see the US' interest here other than for diplomatic reasons. Not even moving the cogs of the war-machine makes sense as getting rid of Libya's army is like turkey-shooting for them, it won't even justify the costs of the weaponry used.

SaintessHeart · 2011-03-21, 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by milan kyuubi

The US have no right to do this.

Care to elaborate why? I am curious.

Incidentally, I find the Arab League's stance incredibly hypocritical. The Libyans are their fellow Muslims, so why not step in to help mediate instead of sitting on the sidelines, and appeal to US to drop cruise missiles?

germanturkey · 2011-03-21, 23:08

I'll wait to see how fast the US passes off the lead to another country. I agree that waging a civil war against yourself isn't a good idea and something had to be done, but i hate how the rest of the world is like, "oh, we'll talk about it being bad, but not do anything about it." which leads back to my first statement about how soon the US can pass this off. But can you honestly expect to see french ground troops doing things? the british and germans are about as close as we can get to countries who actually do things, but this time germany is sitting it out.

flying ^ · 2011-03-21, 23:09

can you believe this?

big money a-rabs begged US to get involved a few days ago and now they're condemning US and NATO for the airstrikes!

Asuras · 2011-03-21, 23:11

Seriously? Where'd you get this?

SaintessHeart · 2011-03-21, 23:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asuras

Seriously? Where'd you get this?

The Arab League made the request and suggestion. But they didn't know that you have to wax your enemy AA before you can fly your planes over.

Lilithium · 2011-03-21, 23:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Care to elaborate why?

Incidentally, I find the Arab League's stance incredibly hypocritical. The Libyans are their fellow Muslims, so why not step in to help mediate instead of sitting on the sidelines, and appeal to US to drop cruise missiles?

He won't be able to elaborate! His initial reply to this thread is hardly even a sentence. But let's face it, the US wanted to stay out of this conflict. But Europe is Europe, and their oil supply was being threatened so they whined to us to help. It's funny because the Taliban & Saddam Hussein were far worse than Gaddafi has been his entire career as a dictator, and we got crapped on by the world for invading their respective countries.

Now they ask us for help. What the fuck? I hate having friends.

2011-03-21, 21:32	Link #1
Asuras Dictadere~! Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.	The Libya Crisis (military intervention started on march 19, 2011) Your thoughts on the US' air raid upon Libyan soil. Good or bad? Uncalled for or, "It's about damn time?" I guess I'll open up. Personally, I feel this is the right thing to do. I could get into the whole tradition of America's history to promote democracy and freedom of the people, but that's not exactly a very good reason for sending ooh-gobs of money worth in missiles overseas. What I do believe however is that Kadafi's reign of terror upon his own people is *terrorism*. Whether or not he was involved in the Lockerbie bombing doesn't matter (well, technically it does) when he's killing his own people. Peaceful protests did not deserve militaristic reprimands. His actions were horrific and his rule has been worse. I can safely assume that many American's are on the fence, considering our years in the Middle East. However (as much as I'm war-tired) this seems justified and right. I don't know about you, but the Libyan peoples deserve just as much relief and protection as the poor Japanese after the quake and tsunami. The Libyan's certainly can't do it alone, and they deserve help. We should be there to help as such. So long as it remains limited in scope and lasts "Days" as Obama has predicted, as opposed to weeks or months (god forbid years) of course. __________________

2011-03-21, 21:47	Link #2
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	I am still unclear about who is supporting what and how far. We've wanted Kadafi dead for decades and I remember him in the news a bit while growing up. I have no tears for the man should he fall. My wonderance is just how much real support is the United Nations going to get from the Arab League. Are they really going to support this, or is this some kind of false face for some other means to discredit the Western World again in the eyes of the Muslim World. What little I have seen so far gives a wide differences in views and thus I can't pin one down over another. Plus there seems to be some kind of split in NATO about just who is suppose to do what. Italy and Turkey seems to have different opinions on the matter. France (of all nations) seems to want to go all out on Libya. The US is trying to be a support role rather than the main force, pushing NATO, France, and Britain to do it themselves. Germany is playing the skeptic in NATO. Russia is worried to death about national sovereignty. And China is being sort of quiet. Also there is the thought that the rebels might not have a chance at this point unless supported in a more indepth way, which most people want to avoid getting into yet another ground war. The United States however is very, very good at waging an air war followed by a quick ground war against a military force. Look at both Gulf Wars. The military actions were quick and deceisive. Iraq's military power and infrustruction was gutted rapidly with minimal civilian casualties (compared to World War II operation of this kind at least). What the United States is not good at, and frankly no one's military is good at, is dealing with sustained insurrections. Only the United Kingdom has managed to put down a modern insurrection that I am aware of, and that took a long time to do (in Malaysia I believe...they left after it ended). Ironic perhaps that the United States, a country that used insurgent tacts to gain independance has its own tactics used against them and can't deal with it effectively. (Not exactly, since I don't think Washington used road bombs and suicide tactics against the British) __________________

2011-03-21, 21:48	Link #3
SaintessHeart NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~ Join Date: Nov 2007 Age: 35	The US has no fucking choice because everyone is looking for them to act. Libya produces a significant portion of the world's oil, and having a civil strife means that international oil supplies will be cut off. And with that, nobody wants to get their hands dirty to actually do something important, not even China, who consumes a significant portion of the world's oil supplies as much as US. It is just a whole matter of political posturing and responsibility shoving. Otherwise why did the Arab League and the UN Security Council took so long to act on an imposed no-fly zone over Libya? This is retarded. Almost everyone wants to have well-priced oil at below $80, but nobody is willing to step in to keep the price there. __________________ When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus. Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

2011-03-21, 21:52	Link #4
Asuras Dictadere~! Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.	I was really wondering why the no-fly zone took so long to be actually initiated. It seemed like a black and white concept to me. You do it. Just start it up. Get it done. I only assumed people were indecisive over who would be later attributed with as the spark of the flame. I never thought of it that way Saint. Then again, it seems like we're splitting up this whole deal. US taking to the skies and several others hitting it up with ground troops. In the end everyone wants some credit. __________________

2011-03-21, 22:12	Link #5
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	The United States has very little intrest in Libya anymore. We get very little oil out of the place (I'm not sure if it is 3% of what the US uses or 3% of Libya's production goes to the US) and since 2004, they stopped their nuclear programs and the like. It was a non-issue for America. However for Europe, Russia, and China, this is an issue, since they get much more oil out on that place. The basic problem with getting the no-fly zone up was two things. One, the Western Powers have been getting the Muslin World upset for a long time. To some, any attack on any muslim nation is a call for all out holy war it seems...even if said country was their blood enemy. Western Powers are starting to try the talk softly and carry a big stick approach again, but haven't got talk softly part down yet because half of our politicians and talking heads are blow hards and loud mouths. The second problem is figuring out if their is someone to support. In a rebellion that has a chance to defeat a sitting national governement, there need to be basically a shadow governement or a rebel leader that the outside powers can back and thus have someone to support. Also if you are going to support a rebellion, you need to have a hint that that rebellion might win, or else you are just throwing money and lives away for nothing. In the American Civil War the French and British were really, really close to backing the Confederate States of America. Why? Because it looked like the rebels might have a shot at winning in 1862. Or at least winning a campaign that would keep the Union out of Virginia long enough for the Europeans to send troops or support to tell the United States to back off (which they could do back then...France wasn't weak in the 1860s and the United Kingdom was the largest power on the planet at the time). This was also way France backed the United States in the Revolutionary War. Washington was able to score a few victories against the English and since the English were also France's enemy, sure way not support the American colonials. In Libya, the United Nations waited until the rebels had some victories and I guess some sort of opposition governemnt to negotiate with. Trouble is, by the time the UN was able to get the Arab League onboard, and find some sort of rebel governement to talk with, the rebels started losing. I wonder if they won't lose entirely within a month without a UN backed ground force. __________________

2011-03-21, 22:20	Link #7
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	Funny is that I had it as "walk" at first, then misremembered it and changed it, thinking or something else. Thing about victory is that you want to know who you will deal with once the war ends. We've discovered through the Cold War and its aftermath that you can easily setup someone that is worse than the people you are taking out. Or even worse, the rebellion wins the war only to desolve into a greater conflict between different rebel or tribal groups that spend the next ten years killing each other off. Or allowing basically anarchy to rule after we finish the place off. There are somedays I think the entire Middle East and North Africa cannot rule themselves, they spent thousands of years under one empire or another that they have no sense of nations or self-rule. Perhaps even nationality isn't effective since many seem to be tribal based first, nation second...or third even, Islam being first or second I guess. Maybe they do need to be under some kind of overall leadership..even if it is only to get them all all hate something together, but be under someone's thumb at the same time. (long lost of Empires, Greek, Roman, Eastern Roman, finally the Ottoman Empire until about 1920.) __________________

2011-03-21, 22:30	Link #8
milan kyuubi Call me MK! :) Graphic Designer Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: The top of the world. Age: 34	The US have no right to do this. __________________ My Twitter account! *Thanks to* Godlike1889 *for the sig*!

2011-03-21, 22:45	Link #11
Asuras Dictadere~! Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.	Right. How do I get the title to change? __________________

2011-03-21, 22:47	Link #12
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	According to the United Nations, the US has every right to do this...mostly because the US isn't the one doing things, it is the UN that is doing things. 10-0 vote on the Security Council says there will be a no-fly zone and to make that effective, Libya's Anti-Aircraft capabilities and aircraft must be nuetralized. After that, I have no idea what France and Britain have in mind. The United States is going along for the ride since it is still expected of us to do so. __________________

2011-03-21, 23:04	Link #14
WanderingKnight Gregory House IT Support Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Age: 35	Something is surely amiss, as with any war started under the pretense of happy rosy ideals and fluff. I'm not familiar with Libyan politics and how Kadafi got to power but I would surely be surprised if there isn't more to the dictator that had so many underhanded deals with several EU nations, especially Italy. I can hardly see the US' interest here other than for diplomatic reasons. Not even moving the cogs of the war-machine makes sense as getting rid of Libya's army is like turkey-shooting for them, it won't even justify the costs of the weaponry used. __________________ Place them in a box until a quieter time \| Lights down, you up and die.

2011-03-21, 23:08	Link #16
germanturkey Udon-YAAAAAAAA Join Date: Jan 2008 Age: 35	I'll wait to see how fast the US passes off the lead to another country. I agree that waging a civil war against yourself isn't a good idea and something had to be done, but i hate how the rest of the world is like, "oh, we'll talk about it being bad, but not do anything about it." which leads back to my first statement about how soon the US can pass this off. But can you honestly expect to see french ground troops doing things? the british and germans are about as close as we can get to countries who actually do things, but this time germany is sitting it out. __________________ Aria is the best series EVER. Rewatch Origination with me. Blessed are those who listen to headphones, for they listen to the sound of heaven.

2011-03-21, 23:09	Link #17
flying ^ Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010	can you believe this? big money a-rabs begged US to get involved a few days ago and now they're condemning US and NATO for the airstrikes!

2011-03-21, 23:11	Link #18
Asuras Dictadere~! Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.	Seriously? Where'd you get this? __________________