We just managed to avoid another Sarajevo

Ghaddafi literally had sent columns of tanks and heavy armored vehicles to the city of Benghazi with a population of over 650,000 people to retake it. This was going to be another Sarajevo. Except that this time we acted right before it happened. Tens of thousands of lives were spared.

That is a pretty significant in my opinion.

Yet we are inclined to discuss how much a cruise missile costs. Look at the big picture folks.

Or surrender.

That is a terrible comparison

Explain why you made the comparison

Unless the people came out and surrendered. We are talking about a city with a population of 650,000 people. Tanks were right outside the city. I do not see how you are not getting the point.

Only I don't believe you or anyone can actually do that.

Nothing to do with Kadaffy's order to show the city no mercy.

and of course he would fight them in the city.

It does not mean he would slaughter everyone in the city. You can't simply say you know he would do that because you absolutely don't know.

But we can know for certain that he did not.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://audioboo.fm/boos/308051-lpc-from-benghazi-when-ppl-saw-how-big-the-tanks-coming-to-benghazi-were-jaws-dropped-libya-feb17

Benghazi was going to be razed. Everyone saw the evidence. There's no reason to that that powerful of a force into a rebel-held city unless you intend to have a conflict.

No,no it's not. Bush lied about what was there, we can see with our own eyes what Gadaffi was doing to his people.

And I am thankful for those lives spared.

*I* think he was fully prepared to slaughter the city. Everything he has done up til now says to me that's what he would have done.

I'm not inclined to rely on his innate humanitarian impulse, or sense of justice.

You only believe him if he says he will do something bad, but don't believe him if he says he will do something good?

Do you seriously believe the man is the absolute personification of evil?

except what you have been spoon fed by CNNMSNBCFOX.

Whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Darfur, Serbia or Libya...

and I oppose it whether it is ordered by a Democrat or a Repuke.

My opposition to war supersedes my political party affiliation.

To me, that's really sick.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-21-Benghazi21_ST_N.htm

"We only want airplanes, definitely no troops on the ground, especially American ones," said Mohammed Salama, 20, a medical student who lives in Benghazi. "We have seen what they do in Iraq, and we don't want that in Libya."

Mission creep on Day 2?

But they seem to have a special distaste for Americans in particular.

Sure you can bomb our enemies for us, just don't show your american faces around here.

You really think these people are our friends? You haven't really been paying attention to the ME have you?

there is major discussion going on as to the political/philosophical makeup of the rebel forces. They may well be unfriendly to the US if they are able to oust Gaddafi and establish control of the country.

My understanding of the mission of the intervention (admittedly, voiced by the PTB) is that we are attempting to stop Gaddafi from carrying out his expressed intentions to seek vengeance on the population in rebel held cities, especially Benghazi.

If it turns into something different, I will certainly change my mind.

But it will be too late. Our bombs have already been launched and the people we kill won't be able to be "unkilled"

This is why I DEMAND proof before I support military action... ANY military action ANYWHERE.

Which is basically to say: you are upset that saving this man's life requires us to take others.

When the invasion starts, you can complain. Thing is, this time the U.S. is merely one part of a true coalition, not the driving force. So I don't expect that to happen, and dunno why you do...

they have certainly addressed his tactics; indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

It fits with the character of the man.

Edit to add: some reporting from BBC.

Not much to predict, really.

So yeah, if it is an indication we can predict that citizens of Benghazi wouldn't be either.

No concern for loss of civilian life there, or anywhere else, if news reports are to be believed. And Benghazi holds a "special" place in his heart.

please

is commonly known.

Please.

It's not common knowledge to me. common knowledge is not "repeated every 10 minutes on CNN"

of the problems and effects of using it in builtup areas.

Perhaps you should get your info from news organizations other than the ones you mentioned.

I'll post a link to the Misrata reporting soon as I have a chance to search it out.

Don't pull that BS. Your artillery experience does not give you the ability to divine how someone is using artillery thousands of miles away based on what some "pundit" tells you on CNN.

Post a link to some actual footage.

difficulty of using artillery in builtup areas; it's hardly BS, but a common topic of training.

You keep refering to your beloved pundits; I've told you, I don't watch them.

While I'm looking for my links, why don't you go ahead and check out Joe the revelator's links. There are plenty there to keep you occupied while I get around to searching mine out.

If you are saying that by using artillery in a populated area they are bound to kill some civilians then I agree with you.

That is a HELL OF A LOT different than intentionally killing them or not caring if you kill them.

It is just as much of a certainty that OUR bombs will kill civilians as well.

So if that is really you problem then you should have the same problem with the US bombing.

I do.

than 2000+ aircraft and missiles using smart systems.

You know these things CAN ride a satellite beam to a target, or worst, get programed before launch using GPS.

Worlds of difference and possibilities of civilians getting killed...

Now we also have reports that Qadaffi was brought in civilians into clearly military targets...

I have a very nuanced view of this mess... not either or... but I also understand military systems.

See those shells on the ack ack fire being fired in oh Tripoli? Where do you think they go when they fall down?

And I defer to your knowledge o artillery in this case.

I only dispute that Gadhaffis forces would INTENTIONALLY slaughter innocent civilians.

I do not agree that they are less humane simply because they are loyal to Gadhaffi.

However I do not agree with you about the precision of our bombs. Iraq is the ultimate refutation to that theory. However it does not matter for the debate really.

they have.

We have had a lot of things going on, but I really sugest following foreign media to learn what is going outside of US borders.

Rape, cutting feet off, and bullets in the backs of heads are just some of the things covered by media that is not quite squeamish.

interesting.

When you discuss the accuracy of various artillery.

I would dispute it if you claim you could divine the intentions of the person using it.

I have said that repeatedly. I am sorry you have poor reading comprehension but there is nothing I can do about that.

at which point it can reasonabally be accepted (such as in Gaddafi's threats against Benghazi)

When firepower appears (yes, I said "appears") to be used in an indiscriminate fashion, and those on the receiving end describe what appears (that word again) to be indescriminate firing, with civilian casualties then, yeah, I tend to assume (I am using the word assume) that the attackers aren't particularly concerned with who gets hit (as long as it's not them).

and the FDC center (assuming they are even using FO's, and an FDC track). Arty also has a direct fire capability.

and those rounds and how much damage they wil do also depends on what you chose.

HE is different than a few other rounds like oh phosphorus. Now that be nasty. (I wonder if they have that capability...)

I don't think we should bomb an entire country because Libyas army may miss and hit some civilians.

The claim is that he INTENTIONALLY targets innocent civilians and MY CLAIM is there is ABSOLUTELY no proof of that.

have you ever done humanitarian work? You know WHO pulled out of Benghazi as this assault looked all but imminent? The INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS. I have... I was a Medic for ten years with a national society. I can tell you this... those boys might be uptight as hell (hell they are swiss) but they don't just pull out of a nice combat zone where they will be needed.

Go on, search for that.

If those people pulled out was because the reports of these attacks told them that the best way to help WAS to pull out and live another day, to later come in and assist survivors.

To me it was one of those huge red flags.

They have pulled out very few times.... rwanda comes to mind as well as Darfur.

I hope this underscores to you just how serious that threat was.

Oh and yes as a red cross worker I have been shot at in a perfectly well marked ambulance too.

Geneva, March 17 (DPA) The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has pulled its workers out of Benghazi owing to concerns for their safety, as forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi made a push Thursday towards the rebel-held city.

The ICRC has been unable to enter Libya's west, as Gaddafi's government said their assistance was not needed, but aid workers did go into the country late last month from the east, where they were accepted by the rebels' transitional government in Benghazi.

The ICRC handed over to the Libyan Red Crescent all its food and medical supplies before its aid team retreated to the more eastern town of Tobruk, closer to the border with Egypt.

http://www.sify.com/news/red-cross-pulls-out-of-benghazi-amid-safety-concerns-news-international-ldrt4kdaaai.html

You could have used the google, but I fear this is not going to be sufficient to you. As I said, having been there, done that... if there is a group that just does not pull out is the ICRC, unless the risks are THAT FUCKING HIGH.

There have dozens, if not hundreds, of videos and ground reports from a wide variety of people in all parts of the country. For three weeks his mercenaries have been using live ammo on unarmed protesters. That is in fact what triggered the armed revolt. The US and international press, including Al Jazeera and Russian TV. They have shown bloody remains and large-scale damage to residential areas.

If your reaction to CNN is simply to believe the opposite of whatever they are saying, it might be better to follow a foreign channel online, as some people here do. Otherwise you will end up with some very strange beliefs.

it does the US no good to have Gaddafi able to provide the world with footage of civilian casualties.

Given your response to JTR's links I am much less inclined to do the search, but will anyway. I can already anticipate your answer, though: "those photos don't prove anything, what the victims are saying doesn't prove anything. blah, blah, blah." meh.

You would realize your trust is misplaced

will be at pains to avoid civilian casualties, if only for the PR value Gaddafi could use it for with the Arab League.

Despite the lack of pains that were taken in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars that we are still engaged in...

But you WON'T believe that Gadaffi forces would take those pains?

You are very selective and arbitrary about what you believe.

And, no, I don't believe Gaddafi's mercs are particularly concerned about civilian casualties.

And, yes, I believe we are at greater pains to avoid casualties in this conflict.

Isee more than simply two possibilities as I am not a neocon.

That argument is exactly the one Bushies used to throw at me about Saddam leading up to the Iraq war.

that falls somewhere in the middle ground, I think.

Is the wife of a man who fights in the war a "non-combatant", even though she gives him a place to hide and stay?

Enlighten me? Do you have faith that Gadaffi wouldn't use the tanks on his people? If so ,does that mean he accidentally dropped bombs on them?


You may not be a neo-con, but you certainly are not a progressive humanitarian.

You know, the ones with Jets and tanks?

It's a civil war and one side is positioned in a city. It happens all the time.

Is it like to defend Gadaffi? Does it make you want to take a shower?

Not that I am pre disposed to defend him. It's really just US bombing of Muslim countries that I oppose.

That being said Gadaffi is probably one of the more progressive leaders in the region. The rebels are clearly more inclined to be islamist/al quaeda/terrorist types.

You will see if they take power, and they will fight us much harder than Gadaffi ever would.

You know he ordered his military to bomb his civilians. Right?

Hearsay is not proof.

In the run up to Iraq after having exactly this same argument with Bushbots about WMD.

They mocked me and my requests for proof just like you are, they called me insane just like you are.

They claimed it was common knowledge that he had WMD. They posted link after link of oppressed Iraqis claiming he had them, of newscasters repeating those claims.s. They called me every name in the book because I refused to believe anything but actual proof.

I am saddened that supposed liberals now make those same lame arguments and resort to the same weak name calling.

I have seen all the reports of rebels claiming they were massacred.

I am asking to see PROOF. Sending link after link of rebel claims is not what I am asking for.

Show me some proof.

Nothing is going to satisfy you. You want to support Gadaffi for some unknown reason.

Because what I need is proof. and there is no proof out there.

That is why you will never find it.

"Some days it isn't worth chewing through the restraints."

that no proof offered to you is going to be enough. They could post video of Gaddafi himself firing a submachine gun into a crowd of children and old women holding kittens while shouting "I, Muammar Gaddafi, am in the act of murdering civilians!" and I have a feeling you still wouldn't consider it proof.

Constitutional Referendum, and it's liberal at that. Fucking aye?

You're about as intelligent as a squirrel, but not nearly as wise.

Now do some research on Gadaffi, his education policies and his stance on the Quran and Sharia law. You might learn something about the aims of the rebels and why they want him out.

They had two tanks, in another city, I believe Zintan. I'm not sure about how many they had in Benghazi.

He arty'd Benghazi for a day or two before he entered.

92 people died.

This was after Gaddafi called a cease fire.

The French fucking saved them in the nick of fucking time.

It is a fight you know? people will die on both sides. Our intervention is only going to drive that number up... A LOT!

That doesn't changed based on political party.

...used our military to help an oppressed people.

They were oppressed and Saddam was a "bad guy"

/I didn't of course.

The false equivalency I've been seeing these past few days is ridiculous.

Iraqis were oppressed and Bush used out military.

You said nothing about "unilateral" and "unilateral" has nothing to do with the "moral code" debate we are having.

Helping "oppressed" people works just as well whether it was unilateral or not.

In the intrim I believe the UNSC and the R2P is a good stop gap until we do have a global government.

I disagreed with Iraq. and I disagree in Libya.

...be razed. Simple.

anymore than Bush had proof Saddam was going to use WMD's

And until I see proof I am not ready to support bombing people.

That the rebels just want "democracy" and the right of self determination

That we are dropping bombs in a humanitarian way.

How do you think the civilians who have died were killed if not by Gadaffi, who has also not denied that he is killing his own people?

They have said as much.

After that who knows? Probably a much more islamic state than the one they had under Gadaffi.

I'd much rather see them put on trial and then punished but I don't think that anyone would argue that these people have committed horrible crimes against their fellow Libyans

if a bomb or something took out Gadaffi, oh well

one less dictator and murderer in the world

And yet you discount his words. Selective? Arbitrary?

:dunce:

It is a news report, quoting a Reuters report, quoting a person, who is saying that a fighter pilot was told to bomb protestors.

I know you aren't going to like this but to me that is nothing. Where is the picture of the downed jet? What are the names of the pilots? Where are they now? Why did they not defect to another country?

It's just not much of a story and as far as evidence, it's worthless.

it is ballsy to fly into a non sanitized area (full ground to air defenses) before they are taken out. Modern doctrine states send the missiles first to degrade it.

So yes, it was balsy and well done

the French first drove the attackers away from the city, where they then engaged the armor (although the artillery they destroyed was away from the city, but within range, already).

on how I interpret the armor strike.

Nowhere else would people automatically assume the tanks are for genocide. The MOST logical assumption is that they would be used to fight the rebels, not to shoot at civilians.

It's a WAR and both sides have weapons and are shooting at each other. The government forces are stronger and better armed and trained.

So what? they almost always are. the rebels knew that when they started rebelling. If they had broad support across the country they would have won as the army would have defected and took their side.

They didn't and they lost and it sucks for them. But it is not the problem or the responsibility of the US to determine the outcome.

Not as armed rebels. That's the difference here.

Yeah yeah things got out of hand and I know you are just SURE Gadaffis is to blame for the escalation, but you really don't know anything about it since we've seen no real footage of any of it.

Even if he did escalate it so what? it's a proper civil war now and not simply government forces mowing down unarmed civilians.

The rebels have heavy guns, mortars, tanks and even jets. and now the protection of the US.

the film I saw of the destroyed armor following the French airstrike at Benghazi was of SP artillery
(looked Russian/Soviet; either 152mm 2S3 "Akatsiya," or the 122mm 2S1 "Gvozdika"). Firing of these type weapons into crowdwed, built-up areas, especially without competent fire control, is absolutely guaranteed to cause indiscriminate damage and loss on non-combatant life (there are such things as "smart" rounds, but I doubt libya has them).

Again, a tank is certainly capable of indiscriminate destruction, but the range of the 122mm and 152mm make such indescriminate shelling even more likely.

It would have been a very nast Sarajevo redux for the Benghazi's.

:popcorn:

(and it is full of shades of gray)

We have entered a new state in International Humanitarian law, and learned the lessons of Darfur, more than Sarajevo

<------- very nuanced view.

The world let the people of both Darfur and Sarajevo be murdered. The distinction I'm missing is...?

and sent none to Darfur

Remember, these aren't Libyans fighting Libyans, either. They're a hired army mostly from other parts of Africa, mercenaries making war on the citizens of a country on behalf of a dictator most want gone.

Maybe the UN has learned a lesson. Maybe not. We'll have to wait and see.

more of his people is just horrifying.

But Europe was quite content to watch from the sidelines until the Serbs moved on to Kosovo.

We quite forget the charming Serbs these days.

People are saying it's Rwanda that preys on Hillary's mind. But she was in the White House when Bill was trying to save people from Serb massacres.

Itzbegovic was about to sign a three way agreement with Bosnian Serbs and Croatians over areas of ethnic influence in Bosnia (which wer remarkably similar to the areas we wound up with in the end), when the US intervened and convinced him not to sign.

The carcases of at least ten tanks lay blackened and twisted as the sun rose Sunday morning. An armoured gun turret had been thrown 30 yards through the air by the impact of air strikes delivered at dusk by French warplanes. It had gouged a deep wound in the soft soil and lay broken and useless.

-snip

It was an awesome and impressive sight. A day earlier, the same tanks had bulldozered their way into the city as thousands of refugees fled before the devastating assault. The fall of Benghazi seemed inevitable.

Now, rebel leaders hope the arrival of air strikes will herald a new phase in their uprising, sending mutiny through the ranks of Col Gaddafi's demoralised army and prompting a fresh wave of popular protests even in his strongholds of Tripoli and Sirte.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8393843/Libya-Benghazi-about-to-fall...-then-came-the-planes.html

being the world's police force. Just my opinion,.

It is pretty significant that the they started the operation just as Ghaddafi's tanks had reached Benghazi.

Help people in grave danger when they ask us for help, because they live in another country and it might cost some money?

:thumbsup:

Who will pay for it?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

It's fucking gross. Have a little humanity for fucks sake. :puke:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it's about whether or not this intervention is both legal and justifiable.

It's a much broader issue than the personality of the president, or his political considerations.

There are seriously people here who trust Gadaffi. WOW.

When I doubted the WMD lies.

That is why the argument is so surprising. I used to think only Neocons were capable of such specious reasoning.

I've read this entire thread and you've contributed nothing of factual significance, and managed to ignore, spin, or deny every piece of actual information posed to you. You've drawn silly false analogies between Iraq and Libya and disregarded anything anyone has told you that doesn't comport with your bias - apparently, you will only accept "proof" that confirms your preconceived silly notions that Gaddafi is a victim. Specious, indeed.

:rofl:

http://audioboo.fm/boos/308051-lpc-from-benghazi-when-ppl-saw-how-big-the-tanks-coming-to-benghazi-were-jaws-dropped-libya-feb17

They were freaking blown away.

All I got out of it was the guy narrating said that the army "must have been adjusting their aim" just as they got hit.

A good analysis.