Obviously, the "No-Fly Zone" in Libya is a bit of a euphemism: it's really the "We Fly, You Die Zone."
What will actually decide the war is the "No-Drive Zone." The linear nature of Libyan geography and the lack of forest makes it fairly easy to starve out the government-held cities in the oil fields of eastern central Libya by bombing supply vehicles heading east from Kaddafi's Surt. Of course, starvation will be tough on the civilians in those cities whom Obama supposedly started this war to protect, but the election is coming, so whaddaya gonna do?
Posts
47 comments:
Didn't Lucas shoot some of STAR WARS in North Africa? Does this mean Obama is like Darth Vader or the Palpatine or Ovaltine or whatever?
Get stuck and duck. That's Obamertainment.
How much of this is about Libya and how much is it about sending a message to the rest of the Middle East? By waging war on Libya to 'save civilians', the West is sending a clear message to Syria to not clamp down too hard on the protestors... which may lead to the overthrow of the Syrian regime as well. Protests are spreading, and though the Syrian government is using force, it must shitting bricks worrying about how much force is acceptable before Western jets bomb their cities as well, ostensibly with the blessing of the people of Syria calling for freedom. And Iran must be shitting bricks too. So, the war on Libya could also be an indirect war against Iran and its ally Syria. West is telling Iran and Syria not to be too harsh with the opposition. Opposition, given protection, could grow more powerful and eventually topple the governments there. If Iran and Syria are forced to fight with only one fist, they can lose.
On the other hand, this may backfire. Iran, fearing Western intervention in the event of massive protests and uprising, may apply more repressive measures to ensure that no such rallies could materalize on the streets. Iran may also ramp up its nuclear program to prevent any invasion by the West.
I always knew that the main Western/Zionist opposition to the Iranian nuclear program was not the likelihood of Iran nuking Israel, let alone the US, but Iran being untouchable by Western conventional arms.
History is still funny. During the Iraq War, Arab dictators and anti-war Americans(especially Paleocons)were glibly saying 'we told you so': Democracy is bad for the Arab world, people don't really want it; most Arabs prefer stability and social control over the kind of 'democratic' chaos unleashed in Iraq. And indeed, the example of the chaos in Iraq was supposed to have convinced the Arab masses that their nations are unfit for democracy cuz democracy = hellish conditions in Iraq.
Yet today, Iraq is a lot more stable than before while the rest of the Middle East is passionately is clamoring for more freedom and reform, even democracy. No one can predict the future--one immutable law of history.
Does this mean the end of CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS if Arabs too want democracy. Hardly. Cultural, racial, and ethnic differences shall always remain. Democratic Turkey and democratic Greece are still miles apart. And even more so from democratic Taiwan or Japan. They may all do more business, but democracy can also fuel nationalism and religious influence, as in Turkey. Democracy in the US is post-nationaist and globalist. Democracy in Mexico may be globalist but it is still fiercely nationalist.
US government imposes on US fire departments: NO-HIGH-ZONE, or no high scores for whites.
Libya had nothing to do with 9/11. It has no nuclear program. It didn't invade a neighboring country. But it gets clobbered anyway. I guess if the West wants to find a reason to do something, it finds it.
It's like if the federal government wants to do something, it find some 'crisis' excuse for doing so.
This is NO ARAB NATION LEFT BEHIND.
the US military seems to have been caught totally by surprise by libya's flying tanks. surely the CIA briefed US forces on ghaddafi's advanced new flying tank technology?
it is an amazing thing to see these 50 ton tanks in flight, with no obvious wings, propelers, or rotors. nevertheless, they are still in clear violation of the no-fly zone, and are being dealt with accordingly. coalition aircraft are now shooting down these flying tanks.
whatever the end result of libya 2011 turns out to be, this discovery has to rank as of the most shocking developments in the history of warcraft. easily on the order of the USS monitor, which the union deployed to the confederation's surprise in 1862.
Seems like Ozone got into this too fast. Maybe the Germans were not stupid after all.
that will be tough on the civilians in those cities whom Obama supposedly started this war to protect
B.H. "Peace-Prize" Obama will personally ensure that his humanitarian-bombing only kills Libyan Racists who have been tormenting Blacks.
Killing enough Racists may net him another peace prize or two.
OT/ the other solution to everything, euducation:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704076804576180522989644198.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Remember the movie BEING THERE where Chance thinks the world is a TV set and can be controlled/changed by his remote control?
With global networks, satellite connections, remotely controlled drones, and etc, the world is really becoming like that, at least for leaders in the real world.
Suppose a Western leader turns on the TV and doesn't like what he or she sees--Gaddafi giving him/her the middle finger. All he or she needs to do is press some remote control button and blow Gaddafi up. Or, in the case of the Iraq War, it can even be stage-managed with the aid of the media as a Live Raid Shock-n-Roll concert. Warstock.
Chance was an idiot but turned out to be a kind of idiot savant. He was ahead of his time and didn't even know it. The world has become a series of satellite TV channels for the Globalist West to switch on and off. Charlie don't surf, but the leaders of the West sure love to channel-surf. Just press a button and boom! 'Kilgore was here'. Instant war and regime change via remote control.
With rise in robotics, this will be even more doable in the future. No more need to worry about casualties when our 'soldiers' are made up of droids, as in PHANTOM MENACE. Just press a few buttons, and the droids will 'change the channel' in some part of the world.
And Bubblegum Crisis 2032 was prescient too, especially in episode 6 where a character named Largo is connected to satellites and computers around the world, thus having the powers of a god to turn the world on or off like TV channels.
For the rest of us, there's something like 'Remote Control' by the Clash. Our minds are like TV sets programmed by the masters of the media, and we confuse the virtual world with the real world. REQUIEM FOR A DREAM.
So Libya suddenly got interesting when you thought Obama would fall on his face because of it?
How petty.
"Libya had nothing to do with 9/11. It has no nuclear program. It didn't invade a neighboring country. But it gets clobbered anyway. I guess if the West wants to find a reason to do something, it finds it."
Ummmm...where were you in the 80s? doing coke like a champ? If so, I'm sorry; you're excused for this retarded comment.
Just listened to Alex Jones and Stan Monteith – the 2 flagship Rockefeller/CFR/Trilateral/Bilderberger conspiracy theorists.
They believe that the big financiers who really pull the strings in international affairs are orchestrating as much chaos as possible across the middle east to enable radical islamists to take over and cause world war three.
That will enable them to push through their police state agenda much more quickly and without opposition. Part of the agenda is making whites a minority and stripping away 2nd amendment rights.
Sadly, Jones and Monteith have been right before.
One of the rebel leaders admitted links to Al-Queda.
This is getting funnier everyday!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
In every war at least one side loses. What if it's us?
1) We support the coalition, coalition supports the rebels. The rebels have 'links' with Al Qaeda. What if those 'links' are real cozy? What if TotalElf and therefore France buddies up with Al Qaeda in Libya? Triangulation, Yankee Suckers, just like backing the Turks against the Holy Roman Empire.
2) What if Qadaffi mines the oilfields? Like the Sauds and Kuwaitees threatened back in the seventies? Only Qadaffi really does it, blows up some now and some time-delayed?
3) What if Libya bombs the US? After all, we're bombing them. They've got time to run a tramp merchant ship full of TNT into New York Harbor, or something tricky, or someting fast and tricky.
This war stuff can go real bad. What's in this for us again?
"One of the rebel leaders admitted links to Al-Queda."
And US had links to both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban during the Cold War.
"Libya had nothing to do with 9/11. It has no nuclear program. It didn't invade a neighboring country. But it gets clobbered anyway. I guess if the West wants to find a reason to do something, it finds it."
"Ummmm...where were you in the 80s? doing coke like a champ? If so, I'm sorry; you're excused for this retarded comment."
I meant recently. You seem to argue that we are right to attack them for their past sins. That would be like some nation attacking the US for slavery more than 150 yrs ago.
"So Libya suddenly got interesting when you thought Obama would fall on his face because of it?
How petty."
Politics is petty, not pretty.
"They believe that the big financiers who really pull the strings in international affairs are orchestrating as much chaos as possible across the middle east to enable radical islamists to take over and cause world war three."
Just how is this gonna bring about WWIII? Arabs are rising up against their own leaders, not against Israel or the West. They are not even fighting one another. It's not Syria vs Saudi Arabia or Yemen vs Iraq. It's mostly dicatorial regimes vs the people. And things would have remained that way but for the fact that the West got involved in Libya, albeit with the backing of the Arab League. Now, the question is will the Arab masses see this as 'west on our(people's)side' or 'west exploiting middle east crisis to gain neo-imperialist control over the Arabs'? I think it's something in between. Anyway, most Arabs are so swept up with standing up to their own tyrants that they aren't so interested in Libya. If Libya was the ONLY nation rocked by conflict, many Arabs might resent Western intervention. But so many Arabs are too busy with their own Revolutions.
West took a huge gamble. We didn't intervene in the Eastern Bloc. We let it fall, and ONLY THEN slowly worked to bring nations like Poland into the Western sphere of influence. In time, even Serbia mayh favor the West over Russia; after all, Russia did little for Serbia in the end over Kosovo.
The West seemed to stand back and watch in the Middle East but got involved with Libya. A gamble, and we'll have to see how it plays out. Did it add to the regional momentum? Slow it down? Or neither?
"I meant recently. You seem to argue that we are right to attack them for their past sins. That would be like some nation attacking the US for slavery more than 150 yrs ago."
Because Jefferson Davis is alive and well, right?
The internet - where being proven wrong is no bar to continuing to argue.
@Just how is this gonna bring about WWIII?
According to the conspiracy folks:
David Rockefeller and his fellow Bilderbergers (along with their Trilateral Commission and CFR useful idiots) control the majority of the world’s wealth. Every dictator in the Middle East either dances to their tune, or is deposed.
The bankers have decided that now is the time to destabilize the Middle East and drive up the price of oil. This also destabilizes the West.
The newly belligerent Arab states start provocations against Israel. Israel retaliates. The US, already occupying Iraq, and with bases in several other Arab states, finds it impossible to stay out (couldn’t even keep out of Libya.)
The “small, manageable” wars that America has been involved in for the past decade become a major war against an entire region.
The US economy gets worse. “Home-grown” terrorism takes place. New homeland security legislation is passed which makes the “patriot act” a distant, pleasant memory. New hate speech laws are passed.
National ID cards are issued coincident with a mass amnesty – come “out of the shadows” to get your bio-metric card.
Miraculously, elections are held in 2012, Ron Paul is elected president and saves us all! (Kidding about the last part)
You asked!
@Anon #3
Wait lets back up here, will Iran really ever consider nuking Israel? They say it shouldn't exist on this planet, but they never talk about leveling the area.. There are more Muslims/Palestinians in the area than Israelis, it would make no sense to drop something as devastating as a nuke on the VERY small area..
I mean I've heard this used a lot as a defense for not letting Iran research nuclear energy/weapons, but seriously, is that really their goal?
"Anonymous said...
How much of this is about Libya and how much is it about sending a message to the rest of the Middle East? By waging war on Libya to 'save civilians', the West is sending a clear message to Syria to not clamp down too hard on the protestors... which may lead to the overthrow of the Syrian regime as well."
It sends a message that repressive states need to increase their repression - to the point that no two people can gather together in a public square and protest. I guess as long as people are only being killed in the basements of syrian police stations, that's okay.
Incidentally, baby-face Assads' father once (I think it was sometime in the 80s) cordoned off a whole village and leveled it with artillery, in order to suppress civil disorder there.
There is no rational way to deal with the middle east. The best thing we can do is to simply tell them: "You dudes are on your own. Good luck with all that. By the way, what's oil going for today?"
60% of Americans support the Libyan War. No anti-war protests to be seen anywhere. Right is always pro-war and the Left is pro-whatever-Obama-does.
I predict Gaddafi will be gone in a month. He can't win against the combination of armed rebels and NATO air power. No way.
Some say US is killing civilians too. Well, it's the price Libyans will have to pay for their freedom. US bombed many towns of France before landing in Normandy. Many French civilians got killed. 1000s of them.
Keith Moon/Gaddafi.
in one famous incident Keith Moon secretly rigged up The Who's speaker cabinets with high explosives timed to 'go off' at the climax of a televised performance as a 'practical joke'.
Unfortunately, Moon overestimated the charge and the resulting, dangerous, explosion ruptured Pete Townshend eardrum and has left him permanently hearing impaired.
An idea of Moon's fabulous drumming style can be heard in the full version of 'I won't get fooled again' (known to younger readers as the theme tune of CSI Miami), which of course also contains Pete Townshed most excellent and haunting organ solo.
Performed live at Woodstock back in '71 a ranting Abbie Hoffman usurped the stage and started loudly spouting nonsense.In another famous incident Pete Townshed, famous for his 'windmilling' and guitar samshing antics, picked up his guitar and smashed Hoffman heavily over the head with it, repeatedly.
Is it still possible to move vehicles at night to avoid air power?
Starving pro-government Libyans, what can you do? I remember seing pictures of MREs being airdropped on Afghanistan with monochrome US flags on them. If Libya's air defenses are out, then B-52s have free reign to drop whatever--bombs, food, random trash.
Oh, wait, that would be US involvement, and we can't have that.
--Anonymous Coward
Anonymous:
This March 10-13 poll paints a very different picture, with most Americans pretty damned skeptical of the whole thing. Do you have a cite for your poll numbers? In this poll, the responers were split evenly on whether to enforce a no-fly zone, but massively opposed to bombing air defenses as we're doing now. (I think most responders must have thought no-fly zones didn't involve bombing air defenses and aircraft on the ground. We're actively attacking targets on the ground now, far past anything that fits into "no fly zone").
Anon:
As an aside, I don't know if there have been anti-war protests or not. The respectable media usually doesn't cover them. Back in the rampup to the Iraq Invasion, I saw local antiwar protests with my eyes, but never in the local media.
In fact, one really fun fact, if you look at polling data: In the runup to the Iraq invasion, about 30% of Americans opposed the invasion. In the runup to the 2010 election, about 30% of Americans supported the Tea Party. Both antiwar groups and tea partiers had big rallies.
If you simply watched TV news, you'd never have had any idea of this fact, because as far as I recall, there was about ten times as much coverage of tea party rallies as antiwar rallies. Much of the coverage of both was hostile, focused on finding the weirdest, creepiest person at the rally and making him the public face of the movement.
To the extent we use the MSM to learn about the world, we're a accepting wildly distorted, spun, misleading picture of the world, with many important ideas and facts simply not discussed, with untrue things repeated till "everyone knows" that _The Bell Curve_ authors advocated forced eugenics and resegregation and probably were Nazis, or "everyone knows" that Saddam had nukes he was about to give to Al Qaida, or "everyone knows" that bailing out the biggest financial companies in the US with no transparency whatsoever was the only sensible thing to do in 2008, or whatever.
I've said this before: If you don't want to be successfully lied to, find media sources you don't agree with, ones from outside the US, ones that piss you off with their slant sometimes. And more importantly, find places where you can bypass the MSM and get at data directly. Find the raw numbers from the statistic, go read the reports published at the Pew Center (they have very readable summaries), or DJS, or CDC. There are places where you have no choice but accept the MSM reporting, because they're the ones with the reporters covering what you care about. But wherever possible, move their distorting filter out from sitting between you and reality.
"Anonymous said...
Some say US is killing civilians too. Well, it's the price Libyans will have to pay for their freedom."
Technically, we are not intervening to win for the Libyans their freedom. We are intervening to prevent civilians from getting killed. But I guess that some civilians getting killed is the price they pay for having us keep civilians from getting killed.
It's mostly dicatorial regimes vs the people.
That seems like a really discordant false note. I think "it's mostly dictatorial regimes vs. the next, would-be dictatorial regime." Maybe "more islamic" should be worked in there somewhere, though.
"It's mostly dicatorial regimes vs the people."
"That seems like a really discordant false note. I think "it's mostly dictatorial regimes vs. the next, would-be dictatorial regime." Maybe "more islamic" should be worked in there somewhere, though."
Maybe it will turn out that way, and indeed some revolutions end up with 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'. But FOR NOW, in places like Egypt and Syria and even Libya, we've seen a kind of aggressive Arab counterpart to the Tea Party. I wish we could be as riled up and overthrow the Soroses and Buffetts who are ruling over us as serfs.
"Technically, we are not intervening to win for the Libyans their freedom. We are intervening to prevent civilians from getting killed. But I guess that some civilians getting killed is the price they pay for having us keep civilians from getting killed."
If we kill 100 civilians via collateral damage to save 1000 civilians from Gaddafi's forces, we'll have saved 900.
Nothing is perfect in this world.
When terrorists held hostages in a Moscow theater, Putin's actions killed some civilians in order to save most of them. Otherwise, they all might have been killed by the terrorists.
That said, I believe we are not there to save civilians. That is just a pretext for weakening or taking out Gaddafi.
Do polls really mean anything? In most cases, the answers are based all on 'feeling' than on information. Some guy will give Obama give a nice speech on Libya and think, 'yeah, I guess we are doing the right thing'.
Libya HAD a very large nuclear program, along with considerable poison gas, biological weapons, and ballistic missiles. Khadaffi brokered a deal, as Rumsfeld reminded folks, after Saddam got pulled from his spider-hole, and dismantled it in exchange for coming in out of the cold (no more sanctions, diplomatic recognition, etc.)
Rational fear of force worked.
The US and the UK, along with France, are already implementing a no-drive zone. It has allowed the rebels (who are pretty much Jihadis, btw) to retake a couple of towns.
HOWEVER, as in Lebanon, and Iraq (during the Gulf War and Clinton), air power alone won't starve out Khadaffi. He's got billions in gold to hand out to Africa's mercenaries, from the Congo War. He's got the ability to send in saboteurs to blow up the rebels oil fields and can blow up the ones he holds. He can leverage terror networks he still has a hold on. He can use his stockpiles of poison gas he still holds. [Cutting edge tech, circa 1915.]
Khadaffi will continue to do so, because the alternative is ending up dead. The example of Pinochet, Slobodan Milosevic, Charles Taylor, and more means Khadaffi would be a fool to give up power. He can't flee to Saudi because he tried to kill the current King. Its fight or die, and thus the only way to stop the fighting as quickly as possible is to send US armored and infantry troops to winkle him out, and kill him.
And lets get real. Obama has the Media flying air cover. Brian Williams, Andrea Mitchell, Katie Couric, Dianne Sawyer, and all the rest, worship him as the God that Walks Among Us. That's the real air cover.
Obama is betting Blacks + Hispanics + SWPL elites + White Women (delivered by the Media) = victory, or close enough to cheat Al Franken style. The elections in Washington State, etc. are also a guide. Obama doesn't care about victory.
He cares about Farrakhan. "Minister Farrakhan" as he calls the frequent visitor to the White House. He has to prove he's Black Enough(tm). So Victory in Libya is irrelevant. Simply being beloved by the Media is enough to keep it close to cheat to win. Its the Chicago Way.
Drudge had a link to a NYT article with the great headline:
"Despite airstrikes, Tripoli residents live in terror..."
Note that the actual NYT article had a different headline. I don't know if Drudge unwittingly did this, or is making a statement, or just taking a swipe at the Times.
Anonymous:
Polls are not useful for answering questions of fact that depend on expertise rather than on-the-ground experience. A poll among the public asking whether HIV causes AIDS is pointless--it's not the sort of question a non-expert is able to sensibly answer. A poll among the public asking whether they have unprotected sex with men is informative.
In this case, we're talking about values and goals. Should we be in the business of military intervention on humanitarian grounds, in situations like that of Libya. 63% of the people in that poll said we didn't have any responsibility to do that. (Which doesn't say we shouldn't, just that we don't have to.) And the people who responded to the poll were clearly less supportive of more intrusive interventions--a smallish majority favored sanctions, it was about 50/50 for no fly zone, and then support went rapidly downhill for giving weapons to the rebels, bombing government forces, or occupying the place.
This tells us that the American people are broadly not behind this kind of intervention, though I suspect the numbers will change to the extent that we get MSM support and political partisan support for it. Elite decisionmakers are, in general, far more supportive of military intervention in foreign countries than the public. (I suspect this has some relationship to whose kids go into the military, but perhaps I'm being unfair.)
"Despite airstrikes, Tripoli residents live in terror..."
Did it say "despite" or "because of"?
"Is it still possible to move vehicles at night to avoid air power?"
No.
It seems most Americans have no problem with blowing things up. The problem is the war getting dragged out. Vietnam War was okay for the first couple of yrs, but peopled got upset when it couldn't be won. It was also traumatic because Americans had never been defeated in a war before; similarly, Japan found surrender difficult to bear because they had a proud myth of never having been invaded by a foreign force.
As the vietnam war dragged on, Americans got so tired that they didn't care if millions of SE Asians might be killed by communists. From 'saving humanity from communist barbarism and plot to take over the world' to 'what the hell are we doing there? it's a civil war, not our business, no matter how many people die over there.' In fact, many were saying we were killing lives in Vietnam to save lives, which 'made no sense'. Our bombs killed people who were supposed to be saved from communism.(Well, we did the same in WWII.) Even so, the main reason for anti-war demonstrations for most people was they didn't wanna fight. After all, when Nixon ended the draft, anti-war demonstrations pretty much dissipated overnight.
When wars are short or shorter, Americans have little or no problem. Korean War, though bloody, lasted 3 yrs. Had it dragged on for 3 more, Americans might have screamed 'bring the boys home'. Grenada invasion was popular cuz it was quick and easy. Panama Invasion also filled Americans with pride. Following the Gulf War, Bush's approval rating was 80%. 80% of Americans supported the Iraq War, and got sour only when it got worse and worse. Indeed, Bush did better in 2004 than in 2000. But as things got worse in 2005 and 2006, even conservatives lost faith in him.
So, Americans either love wars or don't care about them, and many still think in terms of 'us good guys' vs 'those bad guys'. They grew up on superhero movies like Superman, Spiderman, and Iron Man.
Reagan knew this, which is why he pulled out of Lebanon. He sensed that was gonna be difficult. Reagan must have understood Sun Tzu's Art of War, where water is used as a metaphor. Water flows along 'easy' unobstructed areas, and war leaders should go for easy pickings.
Obama's approach in Libya is speak softly and use a big stick. If big stick works, then he will speak loudly and take credit. If it doesn't work, he will dump the blame on UN and NATO. Though NATO is mostly US in terms of power and influence, most people think it's European.
The big question is what will happen when/if Gaddafi falls? Will most Libyans say 'good riddance' and work together for democracy, as in Egypt? Or, are there tribal or sectarian differences in Libya, leading to civil war to fill the political vacuum?
It's possible that if Iraq had been mostly Shia, most people would have welcomed Americans as liberators. But there were Sunnis.
While Sarkozy is busy saving Libyans from Gaddaffi, the following video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENbB7zAM8CE&feature=player_embedded#at=356
shows what is happening to French people in France. But then, 80% of Frenchmen love Obama and 'diversity', so are they deserving of any sympathy?
Much of recent French history has its roots in May 68, whose leaders took over French culture and society. Well, they asked for it.
I wonder if the French strike at Libya betrays a kind of psychological need to reassert itself against the Muslim world. Since French Muslims cannot be touched, maybe the next best thing is to bomb Libyans all in the name of saving 'Muslims'. Perhaps, Sarkozy hopes to send a message to French Muslims that he can come down hard on them too if they get too out of order. But then, who's kidding whom?
Post a Comment