The Civil War in Libya
- Thread starter solarz
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
You are kidding yourself if you think everyone will rush out onto the streets and start hugging and celebrating if/when the rebels enter Tripoli. Only this time is people who are suspected of being Qaddaffi sympathizer who are going to be exterminated.
But hey, they brought it on themselves by supporting Qaddiffi didn't they?
Mr T
Senior Member
Oh my God, you're right - shortage of medical supplies means Cameron and co don't care. You're right, I'm converted. The fact the Prime Minister wanted to stop these people being massacred doesn't matter. Better to be swimming in surgical gloves that breathing air.
I tell you what, seeing as the UK and other NATO members are focused on the military campaign, why doesn't China sort out the relief effort? We hear what wonders China works in building infrastructure across Africa, bringing light to its darkest corners. Surely it could lend its great organisational skills to helping Benghazi's supply shortages.
Really? I thought the uprising started in Tripoli. Or are you suggesting that the same six-year old with the assault rifle and his dad who appear in all the government's propaganda videos make up the entire city's population? Well maybe after Gaddafi got to work killing and imprisoning everyone involved in the protests I guess Tripoli's total population might be reduced to a couple of dozen.
I tell you what, the residents of Tripoli have a better chance of survival if the rebels win than if Gaddafi had rolled into Benghazi. Partly because many of them don't like Gaddafi, partly because many others just want to be left alone and partly because the rebels aren't led by a madman who thinks he's entitled to shit all over his people.
And if you're not happy with that, why don't you share your thoughts on how you would have dealt with Gaddafi's imminent arrival at the rebels' stronghold. I mean how you would have dealt with it, not how you would have clucked your tongue and said how awful it all was. Or maybe because the people of Benghazi dared rebel against Gaddafi they deserved what was coming to them?
Last edited:
The Germans were in a much better position both in principle and in action, and they've pretty much done what Cameron et al should have bothered to have done in the first place regarding humanitarian aid. Hell, even stuff like funding could easily mitigate the rebels burden, but then again NATO et al half-assed that as well so it really is a gathering storm of stupidity clustering together.
And wrt qaddafi and co., it has been part of the western media's blitz from day one of the protests to amplify qaddafi's intentions negatively much more than would actually have occurred, particularly since Saddam or Assad for instance have always been far more ruthless than qaddafi was on his worst days. This does not mean him being replaced couldn't bring something better, but NATO has been its own worst enemy since the campaign started, and the rebels are paying the price for that.
And wrt qaddafi and co., it has been part of the western media's blitz from day one of the protests to amplify qaddafi's intentions negatively much more than would actually have occurred, particularly since Saddam or Assad for instance have always been far more ruthless than qaddafi was on his worst days. This does not mean him being replaced couldn't bring something better, but NATO has been its own worst enemy since the campaign started, and the rebels are paying the price for that.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
You have any sort of support for that rant, or is this another 'WMD smoking gun' argument?
So you are going to actually, seriously, honestly tell me that if and when the rebels take Tripoli, there won't be a lot of 'street justice' meted out to anyone who someone has accused of being a Qaddaffi supporter?
Guess you were too busy trying to collect examples of Qaddaffi's feeble propaganda ploys to notice the horrific stories of what happens to people in rebel held Libya if they had the misfortune of looking black, or have you notice the many documented instances were rebels were displaying their kills, who looked suspiciously like they had been summarily executed.
If you had seen such evidence and still think the rebels taking Tripoli does not hold the potential for a blood bath, then you are either fooling yourself or behaving exactly like the Qaddaffi propaganda squad that tries to pass off car crash babies as NATO air strike victims.
Do not make the presumption that everyone who does not sing the praises of this war are somehow Qaddaffi supporters.
Care to explain how Qaddaffi taking Benghazi would result in a massacre in Tripoli? Maybe you want to CC your answer to NATO since their spin doctors seemed to have missed a trick as they were only suggesting there might have been a massacre at Benghazi if Qaddaffi took Benghazi.
I have some news for you, a poorly controlled rampaging mob who thinks their cause is ordained by a higher power tend to hold the most terrible wrath and contempt towards those they perceive as not a believer in the divinity of their cause, or worse yet, those who dare to oppose it.
There is precious little difference between that and soldiers ordered by a madman to 'shit all over his people' if you are on the receiving end.
If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of huffing into your rant, you would realize I have already set out exactly how I would have run this war if I was in charge of NATO forces.
I would have sent in a modest expeditionary ground force with a much bigger logistics complement deployed behind them. And I would have sent them in before I started the bombing so they would be in position to seize the initiative when air power slams Qaddaffi's defenseless ground forces and hound them all the way back to Tripoli without giving them a chance to settle and re-organize.
The NATO ground forces are just there to act as a line breaker, to punch through any defensive lines pro-Qaddaffi forces can throw up in time. The afore mentioned logistics core would truck in rebel fighters to mop up and secure areas after the main push has passed. This would also help to reduce the risks to NATO ground forces as they won't be sucked into dangerous and time-consuming street fighting, and can leave that to the rebels.
What more, with NATO ground forces present, pro-Qaddaffi forces might be more inclined to actually surrender as they would not have to worry about possible mistreatment or harm happening to them if they surrendered to NATO forces or even if there were NATO forces present to witness their surrender.
I would have also not bothered with all the ICC nonsense and left Qaddaffi a viable exit route out of the country. If the push reached Tripoli and Qaddaffi took the last flight out of the country, the city would likely be spared a devastating seize and assault.
Some people might not like it, but I say the thousands of lives saved is infinitely more important then their distaste, and they can lump it.
If Qaddaffi does choose to stay, then the blood of those who would die are on his hands alone, as he had a choice. Now we will never know if he might have chickened out at the last minute.
But if it really came down to it, NATO ground forces would make taking Tripoli a lot quicker, which would save the non-combatant civilian population no small amount of hardship, but more importantly, a NATO ground presence from the start will also help to discourage abuses from happening, or at the very least curb the worst of any excesses by rebel fighters, and can act as a makeshift peacekeeping force to maintain law and order (if any lessons were learned from Iraq) and also to allow the deployment of the logistical support in providing essential supplies and services for the civilian population.
I hold no love for Qaddaffi, but I am not blinded by propaganda or some dreamy eyed fantasies about how the rebels are saints beyond mortal emotions or motivations.
Had the war ended quickly and easily for the rebels, they might have been magnanimous in victory and entered Tripoli feeling and acting like they were liberators instead of conquerors.
The longer this war drags on and the more the rebels are made to pay in blood and sweat and tears for their victory, the greater the likelihood that their mood will turn bitter as frustration sours into anger and a desire for revenge. With little in the way of a centralised leadership system, it would be a miracle if things the ICC would happliy describe as war crimes, or even crimes against humanity had they been committed by pro-Qaddaffi forces do not occur.
Even NATO seemed to be waking up to this reality with the recent talk of a need to send in ground forces at last.
It is just an enormous pity that petty domestic political concerns and stupidly optimistic projections have squandered a golden opportunity to end this war quickly and decisively.
And one of the chief reasons why that happened is the self induced myopia you have been displaying, and the frankly childish lashing out at anyone who dares to doubt.
Last edited:
Mr T
Senior Member
WMD smoking gun argument? What are you talking about?
Sorry, you're right that the protests didn't start in Tripoli. But they spread there within a matter of days, which shows there are people there who aren't slavishly loyal to him.
Did I say that? No. I'm sure there would be people killed. But as I say below, I think they'll have a better chance than the residents of Benghazi would have done if Gaddafi had won.
And I said that where?
I'm not sure I said Benghazi falling would result in people in Tripoli dying...
I was pointing out that the residents of Tripoli will have a better chance of survival if the rebels win than the residents of Benghazi would have done if Gaddafi had won.
Except that the UN did not and would never have authorised a ground deployment at the start and key NATO members had no stomach for that either.
Can I borrow your crystal ball? I could do with checking next week's lottery numbers.
Seriously, I would agree with you that earlier intervention would have helped. That's why I am a critic of Obama for waiting until almost the last minute and leaving Cameron to fight it out to get international opinion behind intervention (as well as parts of the media like the BBC for trying to paint Cameron as being isolated internationally just because they hate the Conservatives). But it's impossible to know that a swift deployment of a "modest" number of ground troops would have resolved the situation. It could have rallied people to Gaddafi's banner, requiring more reinforcements to have been sent. The rebels made it clear that they didn't want foreign ground troops there (in any significant numbers, at least).
The situation could have easily spun out of control on the ground and diplomatically once large numbers of troops were there. Ground troops also meant intervening nations might have been forced to provide leadership and peacekeeping forces after the rebellion was over. The British military doesn't have the resources for that and the Americans are tired of having to provide them. Oh, and the new regime may well have been tainted with the usual accusations of being "foreign puppets".
All in all I think Cameron did the best he could. He turned opinion to get the world off its backside with precious little help from anyone, apart from Sarkozy after a while.
Maybe in an ideal world the UN would have sent ground troops in early on, but even if NATO and the Arab League had wanted that it would have been vetoed in the UNSC by China and/or Russia. We're not talking about petty domestic concerns, we're talking about public opinion in democratic nations combined with international law and the reactions of other countries. If you're angry, it would be more appropriate for you to focus your passion on countries like China and Russia that don't like intervention and routinely oppose it because they think it would legitimise pressure being levelled on them in the future.
Last edited:
Mr T
Senior Member
Qatar offered to sell some rebel oil on the international market, reportedly for $100 million. But I seem to remember that there were some arguments over how/when the money was to be paid over. And as the BBC article says, what money has been received is being spent on the war (which understandably is the rebels' top priority at the moment).
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
France gave arms too the Rebels.
The Implication of "Light Tanks" Could mean any thing really the Press is well known For misidentifying Equipment. If it really was then my money would be on AMX-13 a long retired Tank but I am betting when they really got were a few light APC's.
The Implication of "Light Tanks" Could mean any thing really the Press is well known For misidentifying Equipment. If it really was then my money would be on AMX-13 a long retired Tank but I am betting when they really got were a few light APC's.
The US might initially be reluctant because they know the situation is really taking sides in a rebellion/civil war and not a 'humanitarian' mission. The British and especially the French are very keen on preserving their colonial influence and advantages, it may not be official anymore but it is very much alive if you look at support for various governments/parties/rebels, smaller military interventions, trade deals, arms deals, and all the corruption that goes along with it.
I didn't talk about prices, I talked about supply, and leverage in negotiations. This is called the strategic picture, not immediately visible or short term results. And check the news, earlier this month the Saudis FAILED to convince the rest of OPEC to increase production.
And anyone thinking Western countries need official 'colonialism' to maintain influence in third world countries are kidding themselves; military and financial support, political cover, corruption and cronyism have been long running tools in Western powers propping up their own dictators and repressive regimes. Funny how Saudi Arabia is an example.
You just answered your own rhetorical question. Making deals with Qaddafi makes him stronger in the long run, why do that when there's a golden opportunity for an intervention and overthrow him? Especially given the historical and ideological animosity in terms of colonialism and anti-colonialism.
Afghanistan and Libya are at least blatantly different in one respect, geography. Look at where each country is and it's no surprise Afghanistan made deals with China. At the same time those are not the only deals nor the biggest deals Afghanistan is making.
Democratic countries play realpolitics too.