Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,713
- Location
- North
Perhaps issues that do not involve every man and his dog having weapons and trying to fill a power vacuum.
Libya
- Thread starter Ricochet J
- Start date
Perhaps issues that do not involve every man and his dog having weapons and trying to fill a power vacuum.
there are many possibilities... none of them likely any better than the current situation, plenty of them likely considerably worse such as massacres on a huge scale
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,713
- Location
- North
That's hard to say, the fact is the current situation is what it is thanks to us forcing a regime change and arming the entire nation. Given past experiences you would imagine we would have some insight to the fallout too.
Its not hard to say - they were in the midst of a civil war, their second city was surrounded with Libyan troops, mercenaries on the verge of capturing it. If we hadn't intervened its fair to say there would be huge fatalities and its rather likely there would still be fighting today... unless of course he completely crushed the rebels and carried out rather wide scale massacres. I'm really struggling to see how not intervening would have lead to the situation being particularly better today.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,713
- Location
- North
Well it is unless you are mystic megg, and it could have manifested in a wide range of scenarios. The fact is we did, and that is all we can assess, not to mention going far past the mandate handed to us and playing a vital hand in the execution of a foreign leader.
None of them with everyman in his dog being armed to his teeth fighting amongst each other for control.
there are indeed a wide range of scenarios... though most within a range of around the current situation through to outright genocide. Its rather unlikely that had we not intervened they'd have simply stopped fighting say and all decided to shake hands - you don't have to be mystic meg to see that.
And no we didn't go far past them mandate handed to us - we were authorized to do pretty much anything up to but not including an actual invasion/occupation in order to protect civilian lives.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,713
- Location
- North
The current situation is rather dire and only getting worse, this is due to a power vacuum and the nation being armed to the teeth. Neither of these were issues prior to us getting involved so I find it a little hard to believe your foresight in to events that may or may not have happened. Perhaps without backup the rebels would have dispersed knowing they were out gunned.
So what part of the mandate said to bomb a fleeing Gaddaffi? Which part of the mandate authorised boots on the ground in form of special forces? Seems you are the only one who believes the mandate wasn't abused.
So you agree we went past the mandate *
Last edited:
So here's a random link by way of analogy to show that such factional chaos is nothing new and does not require Muslims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Resistance#Prelude_to_Civil_War:_the_first_conflicts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Resistance#Prelude_to_Civil_War:_the_first_conflicts
You'd quite feasibly have either a power vaccum or a massacre without our involvement. A large portion of them were surrounded in Benghazi including a whole load of civilians. Certainly one quite plausible scenario not resulting in a power vacuum would have been a huge massacre and Gaddafi clinging onto power - I'm not sure that in that context a power vacuum and the fighting we see today are as bad and alternative.
nope we didn't - like I said it was quite clear about taking all necessary measures - up to a full on invasion/occupation "while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form"... That doesn't exclude deploying SF in advisory roles or to act as forward air controllers nor does it exclude bombing Libyan military targets.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,713
- Location
- North
Hear say, could have panned out in many ways just like I have been saying. You can only go on the facts, the facts are the situation is dire thanks to our efforts. Another plausible scenario would be Gaddafi seeing a no a fly zone imposed would have realised it was a bad idea. There are a 1001 possible scenarios, not many look as bad as the where the country is heading now. Guess time will tell, already we can see the destruction of Libyas infrastructure and the reasonable quality of life they use to live, and things are only getting worse.
Many experts disagree with you, deploying SF is boots on the ground however ever you want to spin it. Bombing Gaddaffis convey is hard to justify by any stretch of the imagination, even for you. It was a simple regime change, that was not in the mandate and it is in part responsible for what is going on now.
Do you agree we went past the mandate at all?
Last edited:
Gaddafi was going to (try to) end poverty in Africa by uniting the African nations, create a new currency, and set out new "oil for gold" trades with the rest of the world.
If he had succeeded, he could have seriously damage the Rothchilds baking business. But when we invaded, the Rothschild family set up a central bank there, which now controls the currency and all debt of Libya.
The securing of cheap oil trades was just a bonus for the USA.
Seems a bit unreal and far fetched I know, but the info is all out there and it's not exactly a secret, it just wasn't reported in the mainstream media. Just do a search for "gaddafi currency"
Last edited:
Its not hearsay - it is a fact that Gaddafi's forces were closing in on Bengazi immediately prior to our intervention. We didn't start the revolution there, it was never going to be without loss of life, destruction whether we intervened or not. Its just that because 'the west' did something and its not perfect afterwards you can point a finger and decide that all the Libyan people's woes are completely down to the west... regardless of the fact that they were up **** creek well before we got involved in anything. You now seem to be advocating intervention but in the form of strictly a no fly zone... had we taken a different approach and it had been ineffective there would no doubt be criticism that we stood by with some token no fly zone while half of Benghazi was massacred. What it really boils down to is simply that as soon as we intervene then anything that goes wrong from that point on, whether the alternatives would have been worse or not, can rather easily (and quite lazily) be blamed wholly on the west.
I don't really care what you think some unspecified 'experts' may or may not agree with - its completely irrelevant. I'm fully aware that SF don't deploy on hoverboards, yes their boots were on the ground - you seem to be confusing a term used by Barack Obama in a speech with the terms of the resolution. A few forward air controllers and some embedded advisers are not capable of occupying anything. As for bombing some regime vehicles - its rather standard... while its nice it turned out to be Gaddafi in that particular incident you might well find that rather a lot of vehicles were bombed... something to do with his regime/military killing civilians - so yes when a bunch of armed men in a column of vehicles decides to head off from one of the remaining regime strongholds they're rather likely to get bombed.
Last edited:
At least they stopped him before he could go after Greggs.
This is all true I'm afraid - The Rothschilds now own a huge baking business in Tripoli - it was all a big conspiracy to start a chain of bagel shops across North Africa.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,713
- Location
- North
Well it is hear say unless you are mystic meg, which you are not. As has been explained things could have unfolded a 1001 ways which would be significantly better than the hell they have been left with "mission accomplished" comes to mind. The fact is arms were introduced and so was a vacuum by killing the leader of the country, it infrastructure and army, these are unfortunately the hard facts.
I'm seeing a pattern immerging here where you try to absolve the west of any responsibility regardless of action, like you did in Iraq. Yea its not our fault the Iraqis are fighting each other even though it is exactly what has happened pretty much every time we decide on regime change in the middle east, talk about burying your head in the sand. The fact is we used the protest for our own needs, regime change.
Yea its better we rely and your guess work above.
It seems you think it was coincidental Gadhafi was in the vehicles, I think you will find they knew the convoy was holding a high value target. Was arming the "rebels" part of the mandate too? You seem to think it was only forward air controllers and some advisers, we know it was much more than that with many nations having boots on the ground in various degrees. I'm not aware the regime was using luxury automobiles to kill civilians.
Simple question, did we or did we not go past the mandate?
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
We gave them freedom, not our fault they messed up.
no it isn't hearsay the fact was that he already had Bengazi surrounded... Its rather unlikely that we'd have had any better outcomes without intervention, its quite plausible that we'd have something ranging from a similar scenario through to many massacres. A power vacuum is probably a better scenario than keeping in power someone pretty much willing to conduct genocide. Its not like we are assuming he would cause massive civilian casualties - he already had caused civilian casualties, he already was killing his own people and his troops had just surrounded the second biggest city in the country.
Yes we facilitated regime change though that was in response to how he was behaving - the west was working with him up until he started killing his own people. I think that when someone is actively trying to kill large chunks of his population regime change is rather a good thing.
I'm sensing that you become critical as soon as the west interferes in anything to do with an Islamic country.
If they'd have known for sure it was Gaddafi you might well have seen further attempts at that particular convoy... he survived the ariel attack - yes as far as I'm aware they got lucky with that one - unless you have any evidence to the contrary?
As for whether we went beyond the resolution - I've already answered that in the post you're quoting and even copied the relevant section of it further up the thread... it authorised all necessary measures while "excluding a foreign occupation force of any form". We're not occupying Libya nor did we occupy it at any point during the military action.
you actually think that was by design... Gaddafi nearly died from that convoy being bombed - he was severely injured from it and rather disorientated. We somehow bombed him just enough to cause injuries or to take out some of the vehicles but leave his in tact...