Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Qaddafi is always a rival for the prized "Craziest African Dictator of the Year" award.

Rival? ever since Idi Amin's death he has been the uncontested champion.

I dunno...he actually tamped down the Cloudcuckooland-type comments after the 1980's, while Robert Mugabe has been in full-blown denial of reality for several years now. For that matter, Jacob Zuma in SA isn't the most stable dude, but he probably wouldn't make a short list of "African Heads of State Most Likely To Genocide His Own People", unlike the other two.

I was going to say that in the world stage he pales in front of the likes of Kim Jong Il, but I daresay that having his own capital city bombed (on the grounds of "anyone who doesn't love me deserves to die!"), and the other little jewels he has been spouting the last day have catapulted him right into world class lunacy.

I'm almost hoping that he wins in order to find out if he can keep up this level of crazy, or was an one-time event.

Oh, guess you didn't see his interview the other day where he claimed that he had not given any orders yet for lethal force to be used. And that he cannot resign, because he has no title or office. Libya is a "Republic of the Masses". And all he owns is a tent.

Frankly, it started to sound the the Monty Python "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch:

EI: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, (pause for laughter), eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."

MP: But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'.

ALL: Nope, nope..

[Nadaka]

Qaddafi has always been crazy. Take a look at his foreign visits to other nations.

Kim Jong Il is evil, but he knows his propaganda is what it is. Qaddafi actually believes what he says.

I don't know. I have heard from several Koreans that Il has been known to kidnap Japanese actors that he likes, and force them to produce television shows and movies for him. Even heard that on at least one occasion he provided a new wife so that when the Japanese government demands the actors return, he had to decide between leaving woman and children behind or going back to Japan.

Il knows what he is doing, but he is still crazy as a loon.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Qaddafi has always been crazy. Take a look at his foreign visits to other nations.

Kim Jong Il is evil, but he knows his propaganda is what it is. Qaddafi actually believes what he says.

I don't know. I have heard from several Koreans that Il has been known to kidnap Japanese actors that he likes, and force them to produce television shows and movies for him. Even heard that on at least one occasion he provided a new wife so that when the Japanese government demands the actors return, he had to decide between leaving woman and children behind or going back to Japan.

Il knows what he is doing, but he is still crazy as a loon.

I define crazy as not being able to tell fiction from reality. Qaddafi might once have fit in the category of sane and evil, but he crossed that river and burnt down the bridge long ago. Kim Jong Il knows the difference, otherwise he wouldn't be as effective.

Crazy would be kidnapping Japanese actors and thinking you liberated them and they loved you. Evil would be kidnapping those same people, doing things to make it appear to outsiders that they are voluntary there,  but acknowledging the fact they might try to get away and make it hard to run off even if given assistance from powerful organizations.
Kim Jong Il is Scientology evil, not like Jonestown crazy.

[nenjin]

I admit I had Libya and Somalia confused in my head when I wrote that. Still, I don't think you can mention Africa and US troop involvement without remembering what happened when we went against Adid.

[Duuvian]

It sounds like Sirte will be a turning point. The rebels themselves have aid they can handle ground forces, and have proved it. The major thing that could prolong this conflict is Loyalist control of the skies.

Let's hope that our Western Leaders get their ass in motion to promote democracy in the form of a no-fly zone. I mean, they've only been waiting decades for something like this to happen. It's either that or the people in power have been lying to us as to their motivations for the way their diplomacy has worked out (IE areas of the world constantly on the knife's edge between peace and war so someone can sell arms to both sides.) Let's hope the Libyan revolution is not forgotten like Stalin forgot the Warsaw rebellion.

My suggestion for the rebels once the no fly zone is in effect (which it really should be) is to feint towards Sirte and force Loyalists to fortify it, then surround and bypass it. If they attempt a breakout, keep them bottled in until they surrender, which should be accepted immediately and peacefully. If he is foolish enough to commit a significant force to defend his hometown, they should be kept from leaving. If he does not, then it is a PR victory for the rebels and gives them time to prepare for encircling Tripoli.

RPG teams should hide in ambush for the tanks that will likely try to take and control major roads. Some RPG teams in reserve in secondary positions that can reinforce the most likely tank route and in addition be in position to cover other possible tank routes would be advisable as well.

This would be to prevent an armored breakthrough, which if given enough fuel, could cause immense damage to limited supplies if even small group of tanks were to get through.

[Bouchart]

The big question, of course, is how much the West should be meddling in Libya's civil war.  I bet the rebels don't want to be thought of as puppets of the West.  I don't expect a no-fly zone.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The big question, of course, is how much the West should be meddling in Libya's civil war.  I bet the rebels don't want to be thought of as puppets of the West.  I don't expect a no-fly zone.

They asked for a no-fly zone. If we create one for them they'll like us. If we recognize their new government as legitimate, they'll like us even more. Considering how rabidly Anti-West Gaddafi is, it won't be that hard to make friends with the rebels, all it requires is that the leaders of western countries stop sitting on their hands (yes, an impossible proposition, I know).

[Bouchart]

[redacted]

[Duuvian]

The big question, of course, is how much the West should be meddling in Libya's civil war.  I bet the rebels don't want to be thought of as puppets of the West.  I don't expect a no-fly zone.

Bouchart, where are you getting your information from? A link would be nice so I can reference it in the future. As to your comment, here is a link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/07/eveningnews/main20040323.shtml

As to how much the West should be meddling in Libya's civil war, how much meddling should Scooby Doo and the Gang be doing to solve the mystery? Should they let the crook continue to frighten and intimidate people? Or should they help the townspeople uncover the scheme?

[Sowelu]

Having difficulty seeing the difference between "direct military intervention" and "creating a no-fly zone".  Either way, you are removing the enemy's airforce from the fight (either you fly in and shoot them down, or...you warn them, then you fly in and shoot them down).  Oh well, I guess it works to say "Could you turn down the difficulty just a smidge?".  Puts some well-defined rules on what you want and what you don't.

My suggestion for the rebels

Once the game based on the uprising comes out in twenty years or so, I'll play against you.  :p

Also it does make a lot of sense not to intervene, because the ENTIRE REGION is catching fire right now.  Seriously, when there's a massive pile of countries pitching a fit, and then other big players start getting involved, it ties a bunch of smaller conflicts into one bigger one.  Not trying to be over-dramatic, but if the big players take opposing sides, all of a sudden you have (by definition) a world war.  And besides, even if that doesn't happen, do you really want to deploy your military to ten different countries at once?

[Duuvian]

Having difficulty seeing the difference between "direct military intervention" and "creating a no-fly zone".  Either way, you are removing the enemy's airforce from the fight (either you fly in and shoot them down, or...you warn them, then you fly in and shoot them down).  Oh well, I guess it works to say "Could you turn down the difficulty just a smidge?".  Puts some well-defined rules on what you want and what you don't.

And besides, even if that doesn't happen, do you really want to deploy your military to ten different countries at once?

Airplanes? Not army? Difference? Didn't I specifically mention that the rebels only requested air support? I don't see how there can be no line between a no-fly zone and World War 3. I can certainly see the possibility of a terrible war starting out of this, and that's why I believe that the line between prudence and cowardice must be found. A larger war should be worked towards being prevented, but wouldn't a democratic uprising in the Middle East go a ways towards that goal if supported? Surely even the more autocratic nations can see this. Americans are working to fix things at home, but that doesn't mean we can turn our backs on the outside world. I want to be friends with everyone.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Americans are working to fix things at home, but that doesn't mean we can turn our backs on the outside world. I want to be friends with everyone.

I don't think the U.S. can really win in this regard. If it intervenes in situations outside of the country, people say: "Imperialist bastards trying to control the world's people and use the causes of others to further themselves". If it doesn't, people say: "Isolationist lunatics who keep what they have and let the world burn".

I think U.S. should create the no-fly zone the revolutionaries desire, though. They're probaby going to hate my country either way, but at least they can hate it in somthing other than a total dictatorship.

[Duuvian]

Americans are working to fix things at home, but that doesn't mean we can turn our backs on the outside world. I want to be friends with everyone.

I don't think the U.S. can really win in this regard. If it intervenes in situations outside of the country, people say: "Imperialist bastards trying to control the world's people and use the causes of others to further themselves". If it doesn't, people say: "Isolationist lunatics who keep what they have and let the world burn".

I think U.S. should create the no-fly zone the revolutionaries desire, though. They're probaby going to hate my country either way, but at least they can hate it in somthing other than a total dictatorship.

Yeah, I agree.

[GlyphGryph]

"Imperialist bastards trying to control the world's people and use the causes of others to further themselves". If it doesn't, people say: "Isolationist lunatics who keep what they have and let the world burn".

I think limiting yourself to actions which are in your own best interests AND requested by the party involved, the party predominantly accepted as the "good guy" side, is certainly a step towards placating both sides at least a little bit. Preserving our interests, making friends, improving our world standing, and without actually trying to take control of the situation and make the government our pawn... I think that would go pretty far.

[Pnx]

The no fly zone is a relatively politically neutral reaction, it seems a fairly safe bet that the rebels will win this (though you never know war can be tricky), and if they win it will more than likely just be seen as an attempt to curry favor with the local populace, it won't win them any points, but at least it can't be said they stood by and did nothing.... that is to say if the no-fly zone ever actually happens.

My suggestion for the rebels once the no fly zone is in effect (which it really should be) is to feint towards Sirte and force Loyalists to fortify it, then surround and bypass it. If they attempt a breakout, keep them bottled in until they surrender, which should be accepted immediately and peacefully. If he is foolish enough to commit a significant force to defend his hometown, they should be kept from leaving. If he does not, then it is a PR victory for the rebels and gives them time to prepare for encircling Tripoli.

RPG teams should hide in ambush for the tanks that will likely try to take and control major roads. Some RPG teams in reserve in secondary positions that can reinforce the most likely tank route and in addition be in position to cover other possible tank routes would be advisable as well.

This would be to prevent an armored breakthrough, which if given enough fuel, could cause immense damage to limited supplies if even small group of tanks were to get through.

I mostly agree, but:
A) You can't rely on your opponents to respond sanely to your actions, emotions run strong in tense situations, there's a decent chance they wouldn't surrender and you'd be stuck positioned around a well defended pocket of enemy resistance.
B) An rpg ambush might not be as effective as you think it would be, it's a good idea don't count on it being all that effective at preventing armour from breaking through.
C) Modern warfare tends to rely less on supplies, mostly because it tends to be more short term, nevertheless it is a consideration.

Personally I'd focus on morale attrition, they can't beat them in terms of supplies but in terms of will to fight time is on their side. I'd go for hit and run strikes to keep the opponents on their toes, constantly watching out for the next attack. That should whittle them down, and a propaganda attack would go down well if you could actually pull it off, which would be pretty tricky. I think I'm pretty damn certain that Qaddafi is telling his troops that everything is in hand and that it's only a small segment of the military and populace that's against them. If you can convince them that's not true then most of them would probably turn, even so I'd try to place emphasis on making them desert, because not everyone would want to fight for the rebellion but it would be easier to convince them to stop fighting for Qaddafi and against the rebels.