OK, so Libya vindicates the "Afghan model" of warfare*

[Jenne]

But, uh, couldn't it also, potentially, lead to the Afghan model of "peace and stability"?

I mean, from what I can see, the guys doing the invading of Tripoli are Berbers.  But the guys in the NTC are Libyan Arabs and Islamists.  Islamists who might be, right now, planning a coup against their more secular and moderate allies.

Neither of them alone has the strength or legitimacy to rule the country, and all of them together barely do.  And all of them together is just not going to happen, as far as I can see.

Oh, and we've made it clear now that humanitarian intervention means "NATO countries settling old scores under the guise of international law".  So, uh, great. 

(*special forces and bombing attacks in conjunction with allied local ground forces)

I've always and EVER said that Revolutionaries make SHIT governing bodies, just saying.  They do a service by turning over corruption or despotic situations, but then they quickly devolve into strife themselves...or further the despotism just from a different pathway.

You just made Oliver Cromwell cry. 

  Sorry.  I used to say this to my husband back in the 90's when he was PRAYING for someone to end the Afghan civil war.

And then someone did.

And look at how THAT all turned out...

[Jenne]

http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya

France:  33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)

US:  16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)

Denmark:  11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)

Britain:  10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)

Canada:  10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)

Italy:  10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)

Norway:  10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)

The most interesting thing about that is, apart from France doing most of the attacks, the UK being outclassed by Denmark and equalled by Italy, Norway and Canda in terms of contribution.

It just shows how much the UK military capacity has been gutted and overextended, when France can clearly out-match it in a near-local theatre.

Because France has held back in the last 10 years while everyone else contributed if not full-throttle at least a *cringe* "decent showing"?

They seem rather...CHOOSY when it comes to international military arms play.

Whereas WE will fuck ANYTHING for $100. 

Yes, yes we will.

Methinks we were robbed. 

[East Coast Hustle]

http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya

France:  33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)

US:  16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)

Denmark:  11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)

Britain:  10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)

Canada:  10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)

Italy:  10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)

Norway:  10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)

The most interesting thing about that is, apart from France doing most of the attacks, the UK being outclassed by Denmark and equalled by Italy, Norway and Canda in terms of contribution.

It just shows how much the UK military capacity has been gutted and overextended, when France can clearly out-match it in a near-local theatre.

Because France has held back in the last 10 years while everyone else contributed if not full-throttle at least a *cringe* "decent showing"?

They seem rather...CHOOSY when it comes to international military arms play.

Well yeah, they don't want to piss off any of their customers.

[Cain]

http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya

France:  33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)

US:  16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)

Denmark:  11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)

Britain:  10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)

Canada:  10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)

Italy:  10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)

Norway:  10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)

The most interesting thing about that is, apart from France doing most of the attacks, the UK being outclassed by Denmark and equalled by Italy, Norway and Canda in terms of contribution.

It just shows how much the UK military capacity has been gutted and overextended, when France can clearly out-match it in a near-local theatre.

Because France has held back in the last 10 years while everyone else contributed if not full-throttle at least a *cringe* "decent showing"?

They seem rather...CHOOSY when it comes to international military arms play.

Last ten, yes.  Not so much in the last five, they're fairly active in a few major conflict zones at the moment, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa.  And they did contribute the third largest force in Afghanistan, after the UK and USA.  Really they just didn't sign onto Iraq, which seems a fairly sensible thing, in hindsight (and foresight).

And it also shows when the French actually feel they have something to gain (like resurrecting their inane Mediterranean Cooperation Sphere, knocking off Gaddafi and stemming the flow of illegal immigration to their country all in one go), they're willing to commit the forces.  In large number.

[Jenne]

Yes, that last paragraph is the ultimate in importance--when they have something to gain.

In other words, their perception of gain and loss seems to harken back to the colonial times, where as the US and UK are clinging to a more, uh, "modern," esoteric form of "gain."  One that politicos can only GUESS at the real-time worth of--because so much of it is just hope and bullshit.

[Doktor Howl]

Yes, that last paragraph is the ultimate in importance--when they have something to gain.

In other words, their perception of gain and loss seems to harken back to the colonial times, where as the US and UK are clinging to a more, uh, "modern," esoteric form of "gain."  One that politicos can only GUESS at the real-time worth of--because so much of it is just hope and bullshit.

Balls.  Every war America gets into has to do with monetary gain for our corporations.  Every single one.

[Jenne]

Yes, that last paragraph is the ultimate in importance--when they have something to gain.

In other words, their perception of gain and loss seems to harken back to the colonial times, where as the US and UK are clinging to a more, uh, "modern," esoteric form of "gain."  One that politicos can only GUESS at the real-time worth of--because so much of it is just hope and bullshit.

Balls.  Every war America gets into has to do with monetary gain for our corporations.  Every single one.

Sshhhhh.  You know what happens when that sort of truth gets out, Rog.

[Doktor Howl]

Yes, that last paragraph is the ultimate in importance--when they have something to gain.

In other words, their perception of gain and loss seems to harken back to the colonial times, where as the US and UK are clinging to a more, uh, "modern," esoteric form of "gain."  One that politicos can only GUESS at the real-time worth of--because so much of it is just hope and bullshit.

Balls.  Every war America gets into has to do with monetary gain for our corporations.  Every single one.

Sshhhhh.  You know what happens when that sort of truth gets out, Rog.

Everyone sort of farts a bit, and goes on with their day?

[Jenne]

Yes, that last paragraph is the ultimate in importance--when they have something to gain.

In other words, their perception of gain and loss seems to harken back to the colonial times, where as the US and UK are clinging to a more, uh, "modern," esoteric form of "gain."  One that politicos can only GUESS at the real-time worth of--because so much of it is just hope and bullshit.

Balls.  Every war America gets into has to do with monetary gain for our corporations.  Every single one.

Sshhhhh.  You know what happens when that sort of truth gets out, Rog.

Everyone sort of farts a bit, and goes on with their day?

    Unfortunately...yes.

[Kai]

Here's a question for you, Cain.

Why should I, a person of little means or impact on a African nation 6000+ miles away care about this as much as any other distant conflict of post-WWII Earth? After the onset of nuclear weaponization, every single military conflict has been a small scale, long term skirmish by nuke having governments with/over small scraps of neutral territory that posess none, corporations flocking to suck up resources after a coop put on by many a government or government organization. All the while the people in these regions just trying to take control of and get the fuck on with their lives and are not helped in the least by the intervention. Every single one of the Cold War and post cold war conflicts has been like this. Why should I not be jaded to it all and just ignore it?

[Adios]

Yes, that last paragraph is the ultimate in importance--when they have something to gain.

In other words, their perception of gain and loss seems to harken back to the colonial times, where as the US and UK are clinging to a more, uh, "modern," esoteric form of "gain."  One that politicos can only GUESS at the real-time worth of--because so much of it is just hope and bullshit.

Balls.  Every war America gets into has to do with monetary gain for our corporations.  Every single one.

Sshhhhh.  You know what happens when that sort of truth gets out, Rog.

Everyone sort of farts a bit, and goes on with their day?

J-Lo re-signed with Idol.

Um...what were you saying?

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

I wasnt sure which thread to put this in.

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/25/7470058-in-the-ruins-of-gadhafis-lair-rebels-find-album-filled-with-photos-of-his-darling-condoleezza-rice

This is the best time in all of human history to be alive. 

[Jenne]

I wasnt sure which thread to put this in.

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/25/7470058-in-the-ruins-of-gadhafis-lair-rebels-find-album-filled-with-photos-of-his-darling-condoleezza-rice

This is the best time in all of human history to be alive. 

Nice one with the uh MICROPHONE up near her face...

that's hilarious...

So Bin Laden watches himself on TV and faps to that, while Gadhafi faps to Condie...

WTF, MUSLIM DESPOTS?!

[Cain]

British government is leaking SAS wank material.  Namely, that the SAS are hunting for Gaddafi.  Not officially, of course, but nothing about the SAS gets out unless the government wants it to.

This, of course, means the British have no fucking clue where Gadaffi is.  SAS wank material is provided strictly for the media and home crowd to whack one off to.  Those of us with an attention span beyond five minutes may also recall the last time an SAS and MI6 team parachuted into Libya they were capured by farmhands and so are probably not the best people to lead a hunt for an internationally wanted fugitive.

Meanwhile, Tripoli is looking more and more like Moscow, circa 1812.  Food is running low, ammo is running low and snipers and urban hit and run attacks on overstretched and undertrained rebel forces.  Most rebels with actual military experience have been sent to the front, about 60km from Sirte, where Gadaffi also probably isn't, though many of his die-hard followers with little to lose are holed up there at present.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110825/wl_nm/us_libya_killings

Hey Cain remember when you were worried about the African immigrants getting targeted?

And there is the mantra, with racist overtones, that the Qaddafi government is using African mercenaries, which rebels repeat as fact over and over. There have been no confirmed cases of that; supposedly there are many African prisoners of war being held in Benghazi, but conveniently journalists are not allowed to see them. There are, however, African guest workers, poorly paid migrant labor, many of whom, unarmed, have been labeled mercenaries

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/world/africa/24fog.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

A Reuters team saw a rebel pick-up truck in Tripoli with three dark-skinned men in the back. One of them told Reuters he was from Nigeria. He sobbed as he said: "I do not know Gaddafi, I do not know Gaddafi, I am only here for working."

Rebels are suspicious of people from sub-Saharan Africa because some have fought on the side of Gaddafi's forces.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/both-sides-libya-conflict-must-protect-detainees-torture-2011-08-25

When Amnesty International delegates spoke to several of the detainees however, they said that they were migrant workers. They said that they had been taken at gunpoint from their homes, work-places and the street on account of their skin colour.

None wore military uniforms. Several told Amnesty International that they feared for their lives as they had been threatened by their captors and several guards and told them that they would be "eliminated or else sentenced to death"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD_IU17aEs4