Support NeoGAF

[Roude Leiw]

...

 

[Zenith]

I did find it slightly mirthsome that "Gadaffi using cluster bombs" and how it's a banned weapon was on the front pages when the US uses them all the time refuses to sign up to the ban.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I did find it slightly mirthsome that "Gadaffi using cluster bombs" and how it's a banned weapon was on the front pages when the US uses them all the time refuses to sign up to the ban.

Quite.

 

[DrForester]

...

Why is there a telescope sticking out of that persons butt...?

 

[empty vessel]

...

This is kind of rich, seeing as how the US refuses to sign a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs. Does the New York Times publish this kind of infographic about the US's use of these kinds of munitions in Afghanistan?

http://www.fair.org/blog/2011/04/16/gadhafis-cluster-bombs-and-uncle-sams/

 

[Roude Leiw]

I did find it slightly mirthsome that "Gadaffi using cluster bombs" and how it's a banned weapon was on the front pages when the US uses them all the time refuses to sign up to the ban.

to be fair the US isn't using them on civilians in cities.

 

[Zenith]

to be fair the US isn't using them on civilians in cities.

not deliberately, but the reason they're banned is that 1 in 4 munitions don't detonate and are then timebombs to be left for civilians to come across. and it really wouldn't surprise me if they were dropped on cities in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[Avtomat]

The rebels are now asking for NATO ground troops in Misrata. Situation there is pretty ugly and air strikes arent going to root out Gaddaffi's forces. I dont know who is actually in a position to supply troops, the French? I cant see how the US/UK can commit troops without an almighty internal uproar.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/16/libya-muammar-gaddafi

Mission creep.

I guess they might just wait for him to run out of funding, keeping people on side, running his war campaign and what not. So sit it out, stabilise rebel held areas and wait for the credit crunch? Cos I do not see how they can win this without ground forces.

On a side note, I found this interview enlightening: Charlie Rose

 

[Avtomat]

Quoted for truth. Look at how poorly they handled the ivorian crisis. Angola, South Africa and Ghana are still funding the illegal government there.

Got a source for that, I would be very interested.

 

[theignoramus]

A sniper's chair had been placed under a small window, which offered a view down the main street. Dozens of spent bullet shells and cigarettes littered the floor around the chair.

In an office that had belonged to an architect there were graffiti written in green ink – Gaddafi's colour – in Arabic.

It read: "If we survive, we are warning you gays and dogs. We will not forgive anybody from Misrata. We will fuck your daughters and your wives." One of the rebels had already penned a riposte: "Misrata is strong. We will win in the end."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/22/misrata-libya-snipers-buildings

 

[nyong]

Namecalling isn't "ownage" -- it's juvenile and classless.

It is true that NATO sans US could lay waste to Libya in a matter of hours if we fought WWII-style. However, NATO could not fight a "socially-acceptable" war without the United States. The US has military capabilities that are not shared by their allies:

"It will be more of a supporting role than a pointy end of the spear role," said Pike. "Most of these unique capabilities are support."

At a Pentagon briefing Monday, U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Bill Gortney described the U.S. role in Libya by saying, "Maybe we aren't flying the bulk of combat sorties any more, but the U.S. is now providing nearly 80% of all air refueling, almost 75% of aerial surveillance hours and 100% of all electronic warfare missions."

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-28/...ircraft-global-hawk-libya-mission?_s=PM:WORLD

 

[RustyNails]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/22/misrata-libya-snipers-buildings

Goes to show what the rebels are up against. Failure is really not an option.

 

[LQX]

Of course it fucking could you moronic excuse for a human.

We are trying to minimise civilian casualties to the best of our ability.
We are not going all out, probably only using about 5% of our airforce.
We are not at full-scale war.
We have not mobilised our best asset, the Navy and the Special Forces.
We have not (and hopefully never will) used our independent nuclear deterrent.

If the UK/France wanted to, we could destroy every fucking tank/SAM launcher/APC in Libya within 24 hours.

And if we really wanted to, we could kill 95% of people in the country within 30 minutes.

So yes. You humongous twat. We can win a war against a 3rd world country.

EU, EU, EU.

 

[Roude Leiw]

McCain says US should recognise Libyan rebels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmHofVLyDQ&feature=player_embedded

The US is using drones now too.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

According to spiegel.de citing rebels, Misurata is under rebel control as of today.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

Of course it fucking could you moronic excuse for a human.

We are trying to minimise civilian casualties to the best of our ability.
We are not going all out, probably only using about 5% of our airforce.
We are not at full-scale war.
We have not mobilised our best asset, the Navy and the Special Forces.
We have not (and hopefully never will) used our independent nuclear deterrent.

If the UK/France wanted to, we could destroy every fucking tank/SAM launcher/APC in Libya within 24 hours.

And if we really wanted to, we could kill 95% of people in the country within 30 minutes.

So yes. You humongous twat. We can win a war against a 3rd world country.

You are foremost a dude sitting in his basement, masturbating furiously to his own militaristic fantasies fueled by games like call of duty.
But if you are that hot for war you can always grab your rifle and support your so-called rebels in their struggle for the islamic califate of libya.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

This is kind of rich, seeing as how the US refuses to sign a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs. Does the New York Times publish this kind of infographic about the US's use of these kinds of munitions in Afghanistan?

http://www.fair.org/blog/2011/04/16/gadhafis-cluster-bombs-and-uncle-sams/

Thinking the same thing when I saw that

 

[Kurtofan]

You are foremost a dude sitting in his basement, masturbating furiously to his own militaristic fantasies fueled by games like call of duty.
But if you are that hot for war you can always grab your rifle and support your so-called rebels in their struggle for the islamic califate of libya.

Gaddafi is that you?

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

Gaddafi is that you?

No, but I've watched enough Rambo 3 to see that US intervention has no place in any country of the middle east, especially when the whole thing is such a clusterfuck like libya.
But whatever gives the internet armchair generals a boner, rite?

 

[Baraka in the White House]

When it comes to our military pursuits I'm about as skeptical and reserved as they come, bordering on isolationist, but if there's one thing this thread has shown me it's that for all the bitching people do about the United States being the world police, the truth is most of them really, really don't want us to stop being the world police.

And that makes me feel strange.

 

[Zenith]

No, but I've watched enough Rambo 3 to see that US intervention has no place in any country of the middle east, especially when the whole thing is such a clusterfuck like libya.
But whatever gives the internet armchair generals a boner, rite?

Wait, you castigate him for (supposedly) using CoD as his source of knowledge when you just admitted to using Rambo 3 as yours? How are you not an armchair general just because you're arguing for the other alternative?

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

I just don't want climbing civilian casualties, no matter which way the battles play out; we have enough already and in Syria and Bahrain.

No, but I've watched enough Rambo 3 to see that US intervention has no place in any country of the middle east, especially when the whole thing is such a clusterfuck like libya.
But whatever gives the internet armchair generals a boner, rite?

Aaaaaaaand scene.

 

[SouthernDragon]

You are foremost a dude sitting in his basement, masturbating furiously to his own militaristic fantasies fueled by games like call of duty.
But if you are that hot for war you can always grab your rifle and support your so-called rebels in their struggle for the islamic califate of libya.

So, how are things in CENTCOM?

 

[lo escondido]

This is kind of rich, seeing as how the US refuses to sign a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs. Does the New York Times publish this kind of infographic about the US's use of these kinds of munitions in Afghanistan?

http://www.fair.org/blog/2011/04/16/gadhafis-cluster-bombs-and-uncle-sams/

Can you find any use of Cluster bombs by the US since the treaty went into effect? Cause even your "source" can only find something from 2009 when they were still legal. The treaty only went into force August 1, 2010... We didn't sign it but I don't see any double standard. Also the US has said it will only use targeted cluster bombs and not these indecriminate ones that gaddafi is using.

 

[Meadows]

You are foremost a dude sitting in his basement, masturbating furiously to his own militaristic fantasies fueled by games like call of duty.
But if you are that hot for war you can always grab your rifle and support your so-called rebels in their struggle for the islamic califate of libya.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

This thread is depressing to read. Are people really this stupid?

 

[LQX]

No, but I've watched enough Rambo 3 to see that US intervention has no place in any country of the middle east, especially when the whole thing is such a clusterfuck like libya.
But whatever gives the internet armchair generals a boner, rite?

Please don't confuse European "militaristic fantasies" with American ones as he is European. A more apt movie comparison might be Universal Soldier starring Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren.

 

[empty vessel]

Can you find any use of Cluster bombs by the US since the treaty went into effect? Cause even your "source" can only find something from 2009 when they were still legal. The treaty only went into force August 1, 2010... We didn't sign it but I don't see any double standard. Also the US has said it will only use targeted cluster bombs and not these indecriminate ones that gaddafi is using.

There is no such thing as targeted cluster bombs.

And the US opposition to and ultimate refusal to sign the treaty was not rooted in some weird political idealism. It was rooted in the US's very real desire to continue using them. And they will continue to use them, and have even colluded with the British government to try to keep stockpiling them on British soil despite Britain's signing of the treaty. The US also told Afghanistan--after it unexpectedly signed the treaty over the US's objection--that it would continue to use them in Afghanistan despite the Afghan government's joining the treaty. I don't know why we shouldn't take the US at its word, do you?

And why did you put scare quotes around "source"? That's weird.

 

[Raist]

Are you suggesting that NATO minus USA is capable of leading a sustained war outside Europe/NA? The fact that they're running out of smart ammo after this short period suggests otherwise.

USA is the only country in the world capable of intervening anytime anywhere in the world. UK, France and the rest just proved they were nothing besides support in every mission in the last 20+ years.

Clearly man. I mean, that's why you did so well in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, right?

 

[Zenith]

Also the US has said it will only use targeted cluster bombs and not these indecriminate ones that gaddafi is using.

*snigger*

 

[TacticalFox88]

Clearly man. I mean, that's why you did so well in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, right?

We had an image to uphold (though Vietnam that's somewhat debatable.) If we really wanted to the USAF alone could've destroyed every square mile of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Gaborn]

Clearly man. I mean, that's why you did so well in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, right?

Don't forget Somalia!

 

[lo escondido]

There is no such thing as targeted cluster bombs.

And the US opposition to and ultimate refusal to sign the treaty was not rooted in some weird political idealism. It was rooted in the US's very real desire to continue using them. And they will continue to use them, and have even colluded with the British government to try to keep stockpiling them on British soil despite Britain's signing of the treaty. The US also told Afghanistan--after it unexpectedly signed the treaty over the US's objection--that it would continue to use them in Afghanistan despite the Afghan government's joining the treaty. I don't know why we shouldn't take the US at its word, do you?

And why did you put scare quotes around "source"? That's weird.

Yes there are smart cluster bombs and the US has continually tried to update their safety

And the US of course wants to use them... when its valid to. It's silly to ban something when your in the middle of fighting a war and you have no idea if in the future you will need to do use them. It has limited their use and once again I like for you to find me a source that says they have been used by the US indiscriminately in the past year an half.

The US has continually lead the world in targeted munitions that have tremendously reduced civilian casualties

And I put quotations because your source is tremendously biased the article fails to mention that all of its events were before the bombs where illegal (which still only applies to the signatories as only about 56 states have ratified it less than half of the world). Only focuses on things that support their causes (despite being called "FAIR") and tries to compare Gaddafi with the US. You'd fault someone for using FOX but a FOX of the left is alright with you...

Look at their Anniversary Benefit I don't call that impartial

 

[empty vessel]

Yes there are smart cluster bombs and the US has continually tried to update their safety

I don't know if you don't understand what a cluster bomb is or are not getting it. A cluster bomb, by definition, is an explosive weapon that ejects smaller munitions. It's the shotgun of bombs. The "smart" in your link only refers to guidance on where they land, not how they indiscriminately kill after they land. The treaty against cluster bombs provides this as its concern:

Concerned that cluster munition remnants kill or maim civilians, including women and children, obstruct economic and social development, including through the loss of livelihood, impede post-conflict rehabilitation and reconstruction, delay or prevent the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, can negatively impact on national and international peace-building and humanitarian assistance efforts, and have other severe consequences that can persist for many years after use...

http://www.clusterconvention.org/documents/full-text-enfres/the-convention/

"Smart" cluster bombs do not solve, at all, the problem that the international community has identified with their use.

And the US of course wants to use them

Great, then we're agreed on the utter hypocrisy in the New York Times piece about Libya's use of "indiscriminate munitions."

 

[Zenith]

[You'd fault someone for using FOX but a FOX of the left is alright with you...

Comparing the Guardian to Fox does not reflect well on you.

And as Empty vessel has pointed out, you've missed the point on cluster bombs. Up to 25% of the bomblets fail to detonate and are then come across by civilians. They've killed plenty.

 

[Plumbob]

Of course it fucking could you moronic excuse for a human.

We have not mobilised our best asset, the Navy and the Special Forces.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=78009

Islamabad—The United States, Britain and France have sent several hundred “defence advisors” to train and support the anti-Gadhafi forces in oil-rich Eastern Libya where “rebels armed groups” have apparently taken over.

According to an exclusive report confirmed by a Libyan diplomat in the region “the three Western states have landed their “special forces troops in Cyrinacia and are now setting up their bases and training centres” to reinforce the rebel forces who are resisting pro-Qaddafi forces in several adjoining areas.

A Libyan official who requested not to be identified said that the U.S. and British military gurus were sent on February 23 and 24 night through American and French warships and small naval boats off Libyan ports of Benghazi and Tobruk.

 

[theignoramus]

The Guardian isnt even close to the disgraceful partisan standards of Foxnews. Few news organizations are, although Russia Today is a legitimate qualifier....
that said, this mission is getting increasingly worrying. The longer and more heavily involved outside powers get involved the more the less independence the opposition will have when they endeavour to build a viable state.

 

[Jburton]

This operation to protect is a scam ...... possibly scamola!!

The only country to get help during this upheaval in the Muslim world is the one with large oil reserves.

What a crock of shit.

 

[theignoramus]

This operation to protect is a scam ...... possibly scamola!!

The only country to get help during this upheaval in the Muslim world is the one with large oil reserves.

What a crock of shit.

if it was about oil, they would have let Gadaffi move into Benghazi, crush the opposition, then resumed the business and amicable relations they had with Gadaffi before the uprising.

 

[Jburton]

if it was about oil, they would have let Gadaffi move into Benghazi, crush the opposition, then resumed the business and amicable relations they had with Gadaffi before the uprising.

With Gadaffi still in charge, the cause of instability remains.

Long term stability means a stable oil flow and one less variability that threatens crude prices.


Enter the West to the rescue!

 

[lo escondido]

I don't know if you don't understand what a cluster bomb is or are not getting it. A cluster bomb, by definition, is an explosive weapon that ejects smaller munitions. It's the shotgun of bombs. The "smart" in your link only refers to guidance on where they land, not how they indiscriminately kill after they land. The treaty against cluster bombs provides this as its concern:



http://www.clusterconvention.org/documents/full-text-enfres/the-convention/

"Smart" cluster bombs do not solve, at all, the problem that the international community has identified with their use.

I know what a cluster bomb is. But what I'm saying is the US government is trying to solve the problem you bring up from my article.

The new policy is designed to eliminate the chance that the bombs could remain active and pose a potential threat to civilians on the ground after the hostilities, Belk said.

and there's actual reasons why cluster bombs might be better than just using a missle

Future adversaries are likely to use civilian shields for military targets — for example, by placing a military target on the roof of an occupied building, she noted. Under circumstances like that, she said, cluster bombs would cause fewer civilian casualties and damage than other, far more destructive weapons.

That's why I think (and the US government thinks) that an outright band is shortsighted and silly. It prevents any further development of technology which could make these bombs safer and better more targeted wepons.

Great, then we're agreed on the utter hypocrisy in the New York Times piece about Libya's use of "indiscriminate munitions."

No we don't because the article points out that

At the same time, the United States has used cluster munitions itself, in battlefield situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in a strike on suspected militants in Yemen in 2009.

and

Libya, like the United States, is not a signatory to the convention.

Also the NYTimes was pointing out that these bombs where fired at civilians the US fires them at insurgents and terrorists. Of course some civilians die but the point is that one targets the civilians and the other does not. And once again when was the last time the US used a cluster bomb?

Comparing the Guardian to Fox does not reflect well on you.

And as Empty vessel has pointed out, you've missed the point on cluster bombs. Up to 25% of the bomblets fail to detonate and are then come across by civilians. They've killed plenty.

I was referring to FAIR not the Guardian. I love the Guardian (its my main source of the European prospective and news along with El País). While obviously it has certain bias has any journalism outlet does I think of it a pretty balanced source.

 

[empty vessel]

The Guardian isnt even close to the disgraceful partisan standards of Foxnews. Few news organizations are, although Russia Today is a legitimate qualifier....
that said, this mission is getting increasingly worrying. The longer and more heavily involved outside powers get involved the more the less independence the opposition will have when they endeavour to build a viable state.

That independence was lost the day the UN resolution passed.

I know what a cluster bomb is. But what I'm saying is the US government is trying to solve the problem you bring up from my article.

No, it isn't. It can't be solved. It's inherent in cluster bombs, which is why the world community agrees they should be outlawed.

and there's actual reasons why cluster bombs might be better than just using a missle

In the first place, that's nonsense. In the second, what does that have to do with the hypocrisy of the New York Times?

Also the NYTimes was pointing out that these bombs where fired at civilians the US fires them at insurgents and terrorists. Of course some civilians die but the point is that one targets the civilians and the other does not.

Armed and actively rebelling domestic insurgents are exactly who the US uses cluster bombs against in Afghanistan.

 

[SolKane]

to be fair the US isn't using them on civilians in cities.

See EV's link above.

 

[lo escondido]

See EV's link above.

And see my points that one was a mistake and ALL of them happened before the convention was signed.

 

[lo escondido]

No, it isn't. It can't be solved. It's inherent in cluster bombs, which is why the world community agrees they should be outlawed.



In the first place, that's nonsense. In the second, what does that have to do with the hypocrisy of the New York Times?

First of all the European countries agreed along with many african countries. China, most of Asia, Finland, Brazil, Argentina, Russia, Greece, India, Poland, Most of the middle east all disagreed (along with the fact it seems that the UK really didn't care that it signed).

And my point was that the NYtimes was critizing the use in civilian areas incriminantly.

Armed and actively rebelling domestic insurgents are exactly who the US uses cluster bombs against in Afghanistan.

You're comparing the Libyan Rebels with the Taliban?

 

[empty vessel]

Your comparing the Libyan Rebels with the Taliban?

Of course. Why wouldn't I?

 

[lo escondido]

Of course. Why wouldn't I?

Because one is a democratic movement and is fighting a dictator as a last resort who was threatening to kill them and the other is a group of terrorist who kill men, women and children indiscriminately and are undemocratic.

 

[empty vessel]

Because one is a democratic movement and is fighting a dictator as a last resort who was threatening to kill them and the other is a group of terrorist who kill men, women and children indiscriminately and are undemocratic.

The first is pure supposition without a shred of evidentiary support and the second isn't quite accurate, since the Afghan resistance are fighting a foreign occupying military. The Afghan resistance are armed and actively rebelling domestic insurgents, are they not?

 

[Jburton]

Because one is a democratic movement and is fighting a dictator as a last resort who was threatening to kill them and the other is a group of terrorist who kill men, women and children indiscriminately and are undemocratic.

Who bestowed democratic legitimacy upon the Libyan Rebels?

You do not need a democratic mandate to fight for your country, especially when invaded!!

 

[theignoramus]

With Gadaffi still in charge, the cause of instability remains.

Long term stability means a stable oil flow and one less variability that threatens crude prices.


Enter the West to the rescue!

Then why are they taking steps that bring long term stability into serious question? Why back a rag tag, incompetent rebel army and restrict themselves to a no drive zone? what you're saying makes no sense. If they want to get rid Gadaffi for the oil, why are they going about it in the most time consuming, difficult manner?