Poll: Rebels rolling into Tripoli

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

To the people wondering why we're not doing the same in Syria...wait for it, we might just intervene there.

So far arab league and protestors in Syria both do not want any intervention.

In Lybia both the arab league and rioters wanted nato help because Gedaffi was bombing civilians and rioters.

If we get arab support then why the hell not intervene?

If we don't have the arab support then intervening is not an option.

and that is the reason we're not doing anything about Syria...yet.

If you listened to the BBC report mentioned earlier in thread it seems the uprising is not as organised as in Libya. In Libya,sections of the military and government were part of the uprising too.

However,Syria is different:
1.)The Libyan military did not seem to be very well organised. In the 1980s Chad defeated them in a war and the Chadian military was much smaller and less well equiped. Read about the "Toyota War"!
2.)The Libyan military has had decades of sanctions meaning most of its major equipment is old. Libya barely had any active aircraft in service. This why France tried to sell them Rafale fighters and modernised a small number of their old Mirage F1 fighters.
3.)A lot of the Arab League does not like Gadaffi. Africa is where most of his support comes from
4.)The Syrian armed forces are far better armed than Libya and have not had the effect of decades of sanctions. It also seems that at least ATM the armed forces are supporting the government and a large number of the personal seem to be from the same religious minority as the top bods in the government
5.)The Syrian armed forces are much bigger. With full mobilisation you are talking about around 220000 active troops,300000 reserves,5000 to 10000 AFVs and over 500 helicopters and aircraft
6.)Syria has the direct support of Iran and its quite likely that it will draw them into the conflict too.
7.)Syria has the support of Russia. Russia is not only actively supplying weapons to Syria but is modernising one of the ports in the country so it can host Russian warships. It was used by the USSR during the Cold War
8.)Israel is also somewhat worried about what will replace the current Syrian regime. They know what to expect from them but a new lot could be unpredictable depending on what groups hold the power.

 

[cmndr_andi]

And we intervened in a way that would protect our interests in the country (oil), not the peoples.

Again I feel I have to ask, what do you mean? NATO have published their breakdowns of targets engaded here. The vast majority of targetsare: anti-aircraft systems (to protect allied aircraft), rocket launcher systems, artillery pieces, tanks, APCs or command and control structures. In accomplishing this a small number of mistakes occurred and civilians were killed (which is certainly a tragedy) but in my mind does not invalidate the good that was done by destroying the tools used to kill civilians who decided to call for their freedom en-mass.

Even if military action is the only possibility (which is nearly impossible to believe), who's bright idea was it to do it blindly firing shells at populated areas? Surely we would have had the capability to assassinate Gaddafi with minimal risk to innocent life.

I think the RAF would have something to say about "blindly firing shells at populated areas". There have certainly been a small number of mistakes where innocent civilians have been killed, but the vast majority of the strikes have either been successful or called off to protect civilians (as of yesterday 7, 459 strike sorties have been carried out).

As for killing Gaddafi himself, I'm sure there are people on the ground who could have guided in such a strike but such an attack would be considered murder. Not the kind of thing a coalition trying to maintain legality and broad international support would be wise carrying out (not to mention that someone - for example his son Saif- would have simply taken over the reins of power and the conflict would likely have continued).

As for killing the uprising, now rather than have a revolutionary movement of and for the people we have little more than a fresh set of puppets we can use to get oil.

Considering how the Libyan people have proven themselves in the past year I doubt they would stand for a set of puppets ruling them. This is so very different from Afghanistan and Iraq - there are no foreign troops on the ground to set up a government and tell the people "work with it or else", the new structures of government have to be arranged and implemented by the Libyans themselves and rightly so (as such systems have a much higher chance of working).

As for a "revolutionary movement of and for the people", I honestly believe we would have been looking at a headlines of "failed uprising", "brutal crackdown" and "thousands killed" on our television screens back in March had we not sent our aircraft in. When a lightly armed "revolutionary movement of and for the people" armed with assault rifles and truck mounted anti-aircraft guns faces a professional brigade of soldiers in armoured vehicles with air support - such revolutionary movements don't usually do that well.

 

[StriderX]

Again I feel I have to ask, what do you mean? NATO have published their breakdowns of targets engaded here. The vast majority of targetsare: anti-aircraft systems (to protect allied aircraft), rocket launcher systems, artillery pieces, tanks, APCs or command and control structures. In accomplishing this a small number of mistakes occurred and civilians were killed (which is certainly a tragedy) but in my mind does not invalidate the good that was done by destroying the tools used to kill civilians who decided to call for their freedom en-mass.



I think the RAF would have something to say about "blindly firing shells at populated areas". There have certainly been a small number of mistakes where innocent civilians have been killed, but the vast majority of the strikes have either been successful or called off to protect civilians (as of yesterday 7, 459 strike sorties have been carried out).

As for killing Gaddafi himself, I'm sure there are people on the ground who could have guided in such a strike but such an attack would be considered murder. Not the kind of thing a coalition trying to maintain legality and broad international support would be wise carrying out (not to mention that someone - for example his son Saif- would have simply taken over the reins of power and the conflict would likely have continued).



Considering how the Libyan people have proven themselves in the past year I doubt they would stand for a set of puppets ruling them. This is so very different from Afghanistan and Iraq - there are no foreign troops on the ground to set up a government and tell the people "work with it or else", this has to be arranged and implemented by the Libyans themselves and rightly so.


As for a "revolutionary movement of and for the people", I honestly believe we would have been looking at a "failed uprising", "brutal crackdown", "thousands killed" on our television screens back in March had we not sent our aircraft in. When a lightly armed "revolutionary movement of and for the people" armed with assault rifles and truck mounted anti-aircraft guns faces a professional brigade of soldiers in armoured vehicles with air support - such revolutionary movements don't usually do that well.

Our governments don't care for them, but they do care for their own image, killing civilians makes them look bad.

 

[jmc007]

Will Syria not lash out at Israel now, with Assad knowing his time may be very short? Israel would then bomb Damascus (Nuclear) and then the whole muslim world would turn on Israel and get close, to stop nuclear bombs being used against them? If so this would be in line of Bible prophecy as in Psalm 83 or Ezekiel 38 & 39.
The Irananian government has even released a film saying they believe the end is near.
Ready to ignore the flac, a comment mentioning the Bible in OcUk will receive, though if just one person seeks the truth, Jesus, it is good.

 

[StriderX]

Will Syria not lash out at Israel now, with Assad knowing his time may be very short? Israel would then bomb Damascus (Nuclear) and then the whole muslim world would turn on Israel and get close, to stop nuclear bombs being used against them? If so this would be in line of Bible prophecy as in Psalm 83 or Ezekiel 38 & 39.
The Irananian government has even released a film saying they believe the end is near.
Ready to ignore the flac, a comment mentioning the Bible in OcUk will receive, though if just one person seeks the truth, Jesus, it is good.

A nation state wont use a nuclear weapon on another, there are however plenty of groups looking for a weapon, i do believe we are heading toward a city being wiped off the map.

 

[jmc007]

A nation state wont use a nuclear weapon on another, there are however plenty of groups looking for a weapon, i do believe we are heading toward a city being wiped off the map.

Not even if Syria used a chrmical weapon on Israel and killed trns of thousands? Would not Israels response be swift and severe?

 

[StriderX]

Not even if Syria used a chrmical weapon on Israel and killed trns of thousands? Would not Israels response be swift and severe?

All Israel knows is severe, so id expect it, don't know about nuclear weapons though if its simply a chemical one.

However the West, Russia and Asia in general wont do anything until its calmed.

 

[cmndr_andi]

Will Syria not lash out at Israel now, with Assad knowing his time may be very short? Israel would then bomb Damascus (Nuclear) and then the whole muslim world would turn on Israel and get close, to stop nuclear bombs being used against them?

So far Assad has played his hand pretty well (so long as you have no morals), he has a strong military which seems to be remaining loyal and is using it to good effect to crush the opposition.

I don't see why a man like Assad (brutal for sure, but a clever man and not self-destructive) would lash out against Israel at this stage when his armed forces are already stretched and Israel is not currently attacking him.

 

[Strife212]

Will Syria not lash out at Israel now, with Assad knowing his time may be very short? Israel would then bomb Damascus (Nuclear)

Erm, no.

 

[cotton_flex]

I just feel we have created the Taliban of the next century.

 

[StriderX]

I just feel we have created the Taliban of the next century.

Hardly, this is somewhat different.

Most of their hardware was crafted, we weren't allowed to supply the rebels with weapons (I believe?)...not directly anyway.

Afghanistan was completely different and was the CIAs fault.

 

[cmndr_andi]

I just feel we have created the Taliban of the next century.

Hmmm...

Libyan National Transitional Council (motto: Freedom, Justice, Democracy)

If you take the letters of the name Libyan National Transitional Council, you get:

TALIBAN

My god, what have we done....

 

[hurfdurf]

Will Syria not lash out at Israel now, with Assad knowing his time may be very short? Israel would then bomb Damascus (Nuclear) and then the whole muslim world would turn on Israel and get close, to stop nuclear bombs being used against them? If so this would be in line of Bible prophecy as in Psalm 83 or Ezekiel 38 & 39.
The Irananian government has even released a film saying they believe the end is near.
Ready to ignore the flac, a comment mentioning the Bible in OcUk will receive, though if just one person seeks the truth, Jesus, it is good.

lol

The bible is incorrect about too many things to take it seriously.

 

[arknor]

These guys are nuts, all these bullets into the air and ricochets from walls have to go somewhere.

the ones going up into the air fall back down to earth

slower than they went up its called terminal velocity once an object reachs this it no longer gains acceleration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity

 

[cmndr_andi]

the ones going up into the air fall back down to earth

slower than they went up its called terminal velocity once an object reachs this it no longer gains acceleration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity

Aye, if you fire a bullet on a relatively vertical trajectory then it tends to fall back to earth on its side and tumbling - reaching its terminal velocity (which is much much lower than it's muzzle exit velocity). As a result you shouldn't die from such an impact, though you could get a concussion since these falling bullets are very likely to hit the head if anywhere.

However, the real problem is bullets that are fired non-vertically. Often they maintain a ballistic trajectory even when fired at a relatively high angle and come down with a great deal of the velocity they are fired at, but miles away. These bullets are known to kill if they hit an unlucky person.

 

[dalin80]

To the people wondering why we're not doing the same in Syria...wait for it, we might just intervene there.

So far arab league and protestors in Syria both do not want any intervention.

In Lybia both the arab league and rioters wanted nato help because Gedaffi was bombing civilians and rioters.

If we get arab support then why the hell not intervene?

If we don't have the arab support then intervening is not an option.

and that is the reason we're not doing anything about Syria...yet.

While I agree with your point I would be a bit more careful with the term 'rioters', scum on the streets looking to do nothing but cause violence are more associated with riots, this started with protests.

 

[[TW]Fox]

And we intervened in a way that would protect our interests in the country (oil)

Sigh.

Do you ever take a break from the relentlessly boring anti-government pro-anarchy I-support-people-who-trash-Tesco theme that permeates every post you make to actually think before simply firing off yet more of the same?

You think its all about oil?

Lets look at that. Prior to the uprising, Gadaffi was quite happily selling all the oil he could produce on the world market. Most of it went to Europe. We had his oil and there was no real reason why, if we went on supporting him, we wouldnt continue to have his oil. Even his infrastructure was geared up to selling his oil in Europe with undersea pipelines etc.

The most oil friendly option was to support him.

Yet we didn't and as a consequence since the beginning of the conflict the premium Brent Crude holds over West Texas Intermediate has ballooned to record highs. We no longer have his oil and it will be YEARS before production is restored properly and when it is - it'll be for exactly the same price relative to neighbours as it always was, only in the meantime, we've all had to pay more for oil.

But I guess sitting there shouting 'its all about oil!' is cool, right?

 

[scorza]

Sounds like the Battle of Tripoli was started with a well-executed operation, a civilian uprising in Tripoli coincided with rebels entering the city from the west, and landing craft landing on the eastern shores. Not bad for a "rabble". It sounds like the rebels are pretty well organised, and even have a pretty good plan for transitioning power after Gadaffi gets got (Blair/Bush/Rumsfeld take note!). Whether that plan gets followed or not is another matter.

 

[MagusUK]

Another thing which is a bit worrying is what will happen to the very large gold reserves Libya already has and the large foreign investments they have too. I hope the gold is protected and some of it does not go missing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJiNzqrZpYY

 

[scorza]

The most oil friendly option was to support him.

You forget that in the first weeks of the uprising, it seriously looked like Gadaffi would lose - remember the rumours that he'd fled to Venezuela? At this point we backed the rebels, factoring in that if we didn't back them they might not want to sell oil to nations that backed Gadaffi. Then Gadaffi launched his fight back, pretty successfully and oops, he certainly wouldn't want to sell his oil to us after all the nasty things we'd said about him - shame after BP had invested so heavily in Libya after Blair brought Gadaffi back into the international fold. IMO we pretty much had no choice but to escalate our support for the rebels.

So yeah, it was all about oil - but what's wrong with that?