Libya: Seriously, where is this going?

[onedreamer]

ORLY? He is not bombing Lybia into stone age, he is not funding civil war nor he is paying mercenaries to fight the government. It is NATO who is destroying Lybia, so I am wishing him good luck and hope he will fought as long as it possible against this evil army which destroys one country after another, and maybe even win.

Correct. In fact he is paying mercenaries to assassinate common people.

 

[RedRalph]

Hey! Lets be fair in pointing out the evils of Ghaddafi.
He also funded and armed the UVF just as much.

And let's be fair in pointing out the Us killed several of his children, it's really not surprising that he'd want to get back at them and their allies

 

[Snorrius]

Correct. In fact he is paying mercenaries to assassinate common people.

Every state does it having police, army etc. It seems to me NATO does not even bother to find decent casus belly.

 

[Benefactor]

I know that the idea of installing "democratic government" is a really obsession of the West these days just like the installing of people's democracies all over the world was the obsession of East some time ago, but allow me please to destroy these delusions.

You can not just "set up democratic government" in country which have long way to develop. To install democratic government you have to meet a lot of conditions which lack in the country like Lybia. You can not just walk into the country consisting of number of tribes and clans and where population have very different values from the countries with successful democracies, and just "set up democratic government". No, you can, but it will fail very soon as numerous examples show us. Africa is one big example of why you should not just apply Western-style democracy to anyone.

Under Gaddafi Lybia had decent economy and income comparing to the neighbours and it is quite a big achievement for any country in this region.

(very simplified version of events.)
1. Libyan protesters hold demonstrations asking for political reform.
2. Gaddafi's troops open fire on demonstrators.
3. Protesters grab guns and start shooting back.
4. Civil War starts, one side supporting Gaddafi, one supporting a transition to democratic rule.
5. NATO provides air support to the Rebels.

.... this isn't about the 'West' or 'NATO' setting anything up, its convenient because Gaddafi isn't exactly a friend of the west. But the Libyans themselves started this rebellion.

 

[Ayatollah So]

(very simplified version of events.)
1. Libyan protesters hold demonstrations asking for political reform.
2. Gaddafi's troops open fire on demonstrators.
3. Protesters grab guns and start shooting back.
4. Civil War starts, one side supporting Gaddafi, one supporting a transition to democratic rule.
5. NATO provides air support to the Rebels.

Step 3 might have involved some Libyan troops siding with the demonstrators (who at that point become rebels). Nevertheless,

6. Civil war drags on.
7. Libyans continue to die with no end in sight.
8. NATO spends millions per day, for little (perhaps ultimately negative) payoff in lives saved.
9. Other Arab Spring protesters now have two models to choose from, violent or nonviolent protest, instead of just the latter having demonstrated any success.
10. Oil doesn't flow any easier, so any self-interested rationale is a flop.

 

[EnglishCrusader]

I know that the idea of installing "democratic government" is a really obsession of the West these days just like the installing of people's democracies all over the world was the obsession of East some time ago, but allow me please to destroy these delusions.

You can not just "set up democratic government" in country which have long way to develop. To install democratic government you have to meet a lot of conditions which lack in the country like Lybia. You can not just walk into the country consisting of number of tribes and clans and where population have very different values from the countries with successful democracies, and just "set up democratic government". No, you can, but it will fail very soon as numerous examples show us. Africa is one big example of why you should not just apply Western-style democracy to anyone.

Under Gaddafi Lybia had decent economy and income comparing to the neighbours and it is quite a big achievement for any country in this region.

It's not NATO that started this rebellion, it's the people of Libya.

 

[Winner]

Step 3 might have involved some Libyan troops siding with the demonstrators (who at that point become rebels). Nevertheless,

6. Civil war drags on.
7. Libyans continue to die with no end in sight.
8. NATO spends millions per day, for little (perhaps ultimately negative) payoff in lives saved.
9. Other Arab Spring protesters now have two models to choose from, violent or nonviolent protest, instead of just the latter having demonstrated any success.
10. Oil doesn't flow any easier, so any self-interested rationale is a flop.

... which is why NATO should have followed the initial air campaign with a quick invasion of Tripoli. Gaddafi would have been deposed, the rebels would have won and we wouldn't have this seesaw war on our hands.

Of course, the French and the British are too scared to commit land forces, the Americans are too tired to do so, and nobody else can do that, so we're literally burning money in Libya with no conclusion in sight.

I mean, this is almost genocidal incompetence we as NATO are displaying. If at least we started training the rebels and supplying them with heavy weapons, but nooo, we can't do that - it's better to watch how they bang their heads against the wall of Gaddafi's forces which are slightly less disorganized and incompetent.

One division - perhaps as little as one brigade - worth of Western troops could have ended this war months ago.

 

[Ayn Rand]

One division - perhaps as little as one brigade - worth of Western troops could have ended this war months ago.

Source?

 

[Ajidica]

Source?

Is a source needed? A fully supported division (or something close to it) of NATO troops landing immediately in Tripoli would have Ghadaffi out very fast, likely with a tank shell through the chest.

 

[innonimatu]

Is a source needed? A fully supported division (or something close to it) of NATO troops landing immediately in Tripoli would have Ghadaffi out very fast, likely with a tank shell through the chest.

You know, I never really believed in the "if we kill Qaddafi is supporters will magically disappear" idea. Certainly not now after he has shown real capability to resist.

But I'm sure Winner would be volunteering for that invasion brigade , since nothing could possibly go wrong.

 

[GamezRule]

We could likely take out Gaddafi in a similar matter as Osama bin Laden. As stated earlier, most "loyalists" are probably not all that loyal.

 

[Cutlass]

Is a source needed? A fully supported division (or something close to it) of NATO troops landing immediately in Tripoli would have Ghadaffi out very fast, likely with a tank shell through the chest.

That assumes we could find him. If we knew where he was, we could just drop a bomb on him. The mistake was that the very first bomb dropped wasn't on his bedroom before he had a reason to suspect anything and go into hiding.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Is a source needed? A fully supported division (or something close to it) of NATO troops landing immediately in Tripoli would have Ghadaffi out very fast, likely with a tank shell through the chest.

Which NATO division is capable of taking a city the size of Tripoli?

 

[bestrfcplayer]

Which NATO division is capable of taking a city the size of Tripoli?

Not the city, but maybe like gamersrulz said that we could send in a team of special forces and kill Ghadaffi that way.

 

[Snorrius]

Which NATO division is capable of taking a city the size of Tripoli?

Obviously it would be magically teleported right into city's center!

 

[r16]

now that Younes is dead , it is time to restress that the rebellion is not okay and will not be .

 

[Winner]

Source?

I said it

But I'm sure Winner would be volunteering for that invasion brigade , since nothing could possibly go wrong.

I am not a soldier. If I proposed to remove an appendix to save a person's life, would you expect me to carry out the surgery?

Which NATO division is capable of taking a city the size of Tripoli?

Doesn't have to be a division as an organizational unit. I said division worth of troops, which means about 10,000 soldiers + equipment and logistical support.

Gaddafi doesn't have more than a few thousand troops in the city, and one trained and equipped Western soldier is worth 10 Libyan militiamen.

Obviously it would be magically teleported right into city's center!

No, they'd get there by air and sea. First I'd land some troops in helicopters to seize the airport and port facilities, then the rest would get in. At the same time, other forces would be transported by air around Tripoli to cut off the main roads in and out.

Seriously, any decent military can do that. In NATO, that means the US (obviously), France, or Britain. Other countries could assist (Italy, Spain), but I doubt they'd be able to do it on their own, even if they had the guts.

 

[kochman]

Which NATO division is capable of taking a city the size of Tripoli?

Well, with proper air support? Most airborne or air assault infantry divisions could.
I was in a brigade, and we took the city of Kirkuk in 2003. Metro area of Kirkuk is over 1 million people (I believe).

 

[RedRalph]

I have to say, this is quietly turning into a realy humiliation for NATO. They have gained nothing, except more proof of the ineffectiveness of airpower alone.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

Source?

Osama Bin Laden is the only source that you need.