Will Gadhaffi Still Be In Power In Six Months? Vote!

andyandy · 3rd April 2011, 08:38 AM

Despite all the initial western enthusiasm that the colonel would be quickly overthrone, it's looking like he may simply ride out the airstrikes and the rag tag opposition.....

So will he still be in power in six months?

If yes are we to expect persistent sanctions or will we decide to mend our bridges after having backed the wrong horse?

Discuss

Thunder · 3rd April 2011, 08:42 AM

how can we vote if there is no poll?

andyandy · 3rd April 2011, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

how can we vote if there is no poll?

Patience is a virtue

WildCat · 3rd April 2011, 09:04 AM

I would have voted "He's not going anywhere for a long time" except he's not exactly a young guy any more.

Thunder · 3rd April 2011, 09:07 AM

if my sources are correct, he shall be dead in 6 days, 9 hours, 45 minutes, and 22 seconds.

precisely.

JoeTheJuggler · 3rd April 2011, 09:16 AM

I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Good thing we don't make decisions about the use of military force based on claimed knowledge of future events.

Denver · 3rd April 2011, 09:17 AM

I voted 'other' because I don't think I have enough information to call it.

McHrozni · 3rd April 2011, 09:34 AM

If the west doesn't increase it's commitment from current half-measures, then he will ride it out. If it does so, the regime could unravel in days. Unless the high level defections are a rouse of some sort (to convince the west he's really a lot weaker than he is ... he is weird after all), a significant campaign will leave him literarily alone to manage his rebellious state within a few days, and the regime will fall a few days later.

McHrozni

JoeTheJuggler · 3rd April 2011, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

If the west doesn't increase it's [sic] commitment from current half-measures, then he will ride it out. If it does so, the regime could unravel in days. Unless the high level defections are a rouse [sic] of some sort (to convince the west he's really a lot weaker than he is ... he is weird after all), a significant campaign will leave him literarily alone to manage his rebellious state within a few days, and the regime will fall a few days later.

I don't think there's any question as to whether or not the U.S. has sufficient military strength to oust Gaddafi.

I assume questions like the one asked in the OP are somehow connected to the question of whether we are justified in getting involved. If the rebels were going to force Gaddafi out the same way the writing was on the wall for Mubarek (not realistic), that's one thing. But if they were just another uprising that Gaddafi would've put down in short order, it's quite another.

GlennB · 3rd April 2011, 11:15 AM

Going by the current UN resolution, it seems to me all Gadhafi has to do is *not very much*. Just maintain a slight advantage and the rebels are subject to the same constraints as the loyalists.

Whether somebody close to his home might want to ,er, 'short circuit' Gadhafi's exit is another matter.

JoeTheJuggler · 3rd April 2011, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by GlennB

Going by the current UN resolution,

But sadly, the coalition (or NATO) isn't abiding by it. It calls for an immediate ceasefire, yet we're providing support to an armed rebellion.

GlennB · 3rd April 2011, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

But sadly, the coalition (or NATO) isn't abiding by it. It calls for an immediate ceasefire, yet we're providing support to a rebellion.

It certainly looks that way. The proof of that pudding would be if the rebels gained ground, recruited deserters and their heavy artillery and tanks, then proved to be just as savage as Gadhafi's mob. Then we'd be obliged to zap them with missiles and the like.

We shall see, though I strongly suspect Gadhafi is bright enough to have spotted the hole that the Coalition have dug for themselves.

Ysidro · 3rd April 2011, 02:42 PM

Do you really think he's going to obey the results of a poll on JREF? I mean, if it were this easy why didn't why try it already!?

theprestige · 3rd April 2011, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Good thing we don't make decisions about the use of military force based on claimed knowledge of future events.

Hopefully "we" make decisions about the use of military force based on an accurate assessment of our military capabilities, a reasonable expectation that a particular objective can be achieved, and a serious intention to achieve that objective.

So which of the three do you suspect might be baffling our military planners, so that their planning no better than casting lots or reading tarot cards?

Is it that they have no accurate assessment of our military capabilities?
Is it that they have no idea whether the stated objective is reasonable?
Is it that they have no serious intention to achieve that objective?

egslim · 7th April 2011, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I don't think there's any question as to whether or not the U.S. has sufficient military strength to oust Gaddafi.

No, but the million dollar question is if the US (or NATO) has the political will to apply it.

I think at the current rate Gadaffi could last for months, and if NATO were to cease operations three months from now he could probably defeat the rebels in a matter of days or weeks.

egslim · 7th April 2011, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Hopefully "we" make decisions about the use of military force based on an accurate assessment of our military capabilities, a reasonable expectation that a particular objective can be achieved, and a serious intention to achieve that objective.

So which of the three do you suspect might be baffling our military planners, so that their planning no better than casting lots or reading tarot cards?

Is it that they have no accurate assessment of our military capabilities?
Is it that they have no idea whether the stated objective is reasonable?
Is it that they have no serious intention to achieve that objective?

Good question, and there's probably no simple answer.

I think military planners focus too much on training and technological military capability, not enough on the human factors. The key to evaluate chances for success in Libya is to accurately determine the web of tribal tensions and alliances in the country, together with the local's motivations.
Instead our planners are trained to go after the enemy's C&C and hardware, which is a good strategy in a pitched battle against a conventional army, but of limited use in tribal warfare.

On a lower level, our military personel seems to go into these kinds of conflicts with vague beliefs like they're there to help people, save lives, etc. That's a recipe for failure, because such idealistic objectives are unsuitable for military power. Bombs and bullets don't save lives, they kill people. Accept that, and set expectations accordingly.

The political level is more complicated. A politician's motivation to support an operation may not always coïncide with the operation's objective. He can use it to score short-term domestic points, without regards for the long-term effect. On the international stage politicians also love to make themselves important. Can anyone see US politicians happy to play second fiddle internationally if France had gone into Libya at the head of an alliance, without US military support?
Military expenditure plays a role too. If you spend a lot of money on the military, you'll want to get your money's worth sometimes. Enter Albright's famous quote.

Captain.Sassy · 10th April 2011, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Hopefully "we" make decisions about the use of military force based on an accurate assessment of our military capabilities, a reasonable expectation that a particular objective can be achieved, and a serious intention to achieve that objective.

So which of the three do you suspect might be baffling our military planners, so that their planning no better than casting lots or reading tarot cards?

Is it that they have no accurate assessment of our military capabilities?
Is it that they have no idea whether the stated objective is reasonable?
Is it that they have no serious intention to achieve that objective?

I think they may have been off on (1). The forces that were brought to bear on Khaddafy were Western air power and the Libyan rebel ground forces. It seems like the ground forces may not have measured up to their hypothesized effectiveness.

Now regime change using fairly limited means has been promised, a promised outcome that may be at the same time difficult but politically imperative for some Western leaders to deliver. It's a stupid place to be in politically cause now one possible resolution of the conflict that might more readily have been delivered relying on (it turns out) airpower alone, namely a ceasefire with Khadhafy and de-facto sovereignty for the East of Libya (like Kosovo), will be portrayed internationally and domestically as a Khadaffi having beaten the West and the Democrats, respectively. Committing more to a ground war similarly has risks for Western leaders both domestically and internationally.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...orces-benghazi

Rebel defences around Ajdabiya appeared to be failing as Gaddafi's soldiers broke in to the heart of the strategic town, 90 miles from Benghazi, and engaged in running street battles after again outmanoeuvring the revolutionaries.

http://www.economist.com/node/18488264

If partition of some kind were to happen, it looks like Ajdabiya would be a pretty important city that either side would want to control, since it looks like that would mean controlling the main roads to the oil fields in the south. Assuming that a partition reflected 'facts on the ground' (think Bosnia).

Also from the Guardian article:
Nato forced a rebel MIG jet to land because of the UN-imposed no-fly zone

Bill Thompson · 10th April 2011, 02:44 PM

Do most Libyans support him?

This is something that the Western media avoids. So I suspect they do. If most Libyans like Ghadhaffi, how can he be taken out of power?

Caustic Logic · 10th April 2011, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Do most Libyans support him?

This is something that the Western media avoids. So I suspect they do. If most Libyans like Ghadhaffi, how can he be taken out of power?

Yeah, but the guys in the east really, really, really hate him. So it kind of averages out well enough, doesn't it?

andyandy · 17th July 2011, 07:01 AM

Thought I'd resurrect the thread as the 2-3 month time frame option has expired on the poll....

The Colonel seems still very much in power - and looking like he's not going anywhere. Indeed, if i was betting on an outcome, it'd be some sort of negotiated settlement in the autumn allowing NATO to get the hell out of operations - maybe a semi-autonomous region with UN peacekeepers in the rebel area....?

Toontown · 17th July 2011, 10:21 AM

The Duck of Death is no longer the recognized ruler of Libya, though he remains holed up in Tripoli. 30 countries have now recognized the largest rebel organization as the legitimate government. That means the former rebels now have access to Libya's frozen assets and can legally sell Libyan oil.

McHrozni · 17th July 2011, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Toontown

The Duck of Death is no longer the recognized ruler of Libya, though he remains holed up in Tripoli. 30 countries have now recognized the largest rebel organization as the legitimate government. That means the former rebels now have access to Libya's frozen assets and can legally sell Libyan oil.

In theory, at least. Depending on how the 4th battle of Brega pans out.

McHrozni

Toontown · 17th July 2011, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

In theory, at least. Depending on how the 4th battle of Brega pans out.

McHrozni

I doubt that the outcome of any battle can save The Quacker at this point. He is too small, and the international forces arrayed against him are too large.

McHrozni · 18th July 2011, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Toontown

I doubt that the outcome of any battle can save The Quacker at this point. He is too small, and the international forces arrayed against him are too large.

True, but the international forces are also reluctant to use a significant portion of their power and are getting weary. If NATO quits, he may yet survive the war, since rebels would be demoralized and his troops would recieve a significant morale boost.
But this probably won't happen, which is good.

McHrozni

Caustic Logic · 18th July 2011, 02:39 PM

Now that the party of al Qaeda and lynch mobs is recognized even by the US, my partition proposal won't likely fly, but here it is:
http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2...-solution.html

The people of Libya that still support Gaddafi (somewhere near a million were in the streets of Tripoli recently) will just have to get used to the new management, and they better not start "protesting" against them. That was a one-time deal. folks. NATO will not help out the next one...

andyandy · 21st August 2011, 02:07 AM

Still there.....

andyandy · 21st August 2011, 05:10 PM

Going?

Alt+F4 · 21st August 2011, 07:04 PM

I voted that he will be gone in days, but I am posting this on August 21.

Dayan81 · 21st August 2011, 08:05 PM

I suspect he will either be arrested or dead within 24 hours.

Checkmite · 21st August 2011, 08:49 PM

Rebel propaganda and dog lies of Satan. Gaddafi, God be praised, shall always control Libya.

HoverBoarder · 21st August 2011, 09:54 PM

Congratulations Libyans your tyrant and the mad dog of Africa is finally done killing your people.

trustbutverify · 21st August 2011, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by HoverBoarder

Congratulations Libyans your tyrant and the mad dog of Africa is finally done killing your people.

and my condolences to the Cynthia Mckinney/Hugo Chavez douchebag foundation.

Caustic Logic · 22nd August 2011, 02:26 PM

I used to wonder if people at lynching parties ever stopped and said "Oh my God, look at us! We're a buch of animals. Are we even sure this guy really raped a white girl?"

I figured the answer was no. Comments here, elsewhere, from the masses and their leaders, on this undemocratic brute force "popular revolution" by NATO bombs and rebel monster invasions, I can see that confirmed.

Anyway, bring in the free market reforms, the full access to onshore oil, Vivendi management of the great manmade river, a more profitable and controllable central bank, and the lucrative western reconstruction contracts. All under the flag of Libya's co-opted and corrupt monarchy. It's a perfect takeover, except for taking months, billions of dollars, and thousands of dead more than it was supposed to.

Cut the lifetime health care and universal education for Libya's people, aid to the rest of Africa, and the colorful and stubborn leader who used to be an easy scapegoat to blame for anything we didn't want to know the truth about.

I suppose we'll need a replacement for that last part.

That is, once Tripoli is actually subdued with its million Gaddafi supporters (the vast majority), and the majority elsewhere in the country fails to re-impose its will, somehow, over NATO's fond dreams and foot soldiers. Voting at this point is the enemy, unless the slate of options can be carefully pared down by someone sympathetic...

Caustic Logic · 22nd August 2011, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

and my condolences to the Cynthia Mckinney/Hugo Chavez douchebag foundation.

Make that the Cynthia McKinney/Hugo Chavez/Caustic Logic/solid majority of the Libyan people/etc. douchebag foundation.

Managed to verify any of the rebel claims you trusted as to why this war was necessary? (Massacring protesters, promising to kill everyone in Benghazi, using African mercenaries, mass rape, bombing Tripoli, practicing "genocide," etc...)

trustbutverify · 22nd August 2011, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Make that the Cynthia McKinney/Hugo Chavez/Caustic Logic/solid majority of the Libyan people/etc. douchebag foundation.

Managed to verify any of the rebel claims you trusted as to why this war was necessary? (Massacring protesters, promising to kill everyone in Benghazi, using African mercenaries, mass rape, bombing Tripoli, practicing "genocide," etc...)

You Mad?

The Central Scrutinizer · 22nd August 2011, 05:32 PM

I voted "Other...." assuming that was the Planet X option.

cwalner · 23rd August 2011, 12:12 PM

Looking at the date of the poll, I just voted 2-3 months.

I am such a cheater.

portlandatheist · 23rd August 2011, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Make that the Cynthia McKinney/Hugo Chavez/Caustic Logic/solid majority of the Libyan people/etc. douchebag foundation.

Managed to verify any of the rebel claims you trusted as to why this war was necessary? (Massacring protesters, promising to kill everyone in Benghazi, using African mercenaries, mass rape, bombing Tripoli, practicing "genocide," etc...)

you're not alone. Some of the resident 9/11 conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers are disappointed as well.

trustbutverify · 23rd August 2011, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

you're not alone. Some of the resident 9/11 conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers are disappointed as well.

Seems that the entire Galloway left is enraged over this "fake revolution" accomplished against the true wishes of the Libyan people by NATO crimes.

Pardalis · 25th August 2011, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

solid majority of the Libyan people/etc. douchebag foundation.

And when exactly was this poll conducted?

Seems the Libyans have their hands full at the moment.

He'll be gone in days!	3	5.26%
He'll definitely be gone in a few weeks!	5	8.77%
Give it 2 or 3 months and he'll be gone for sure!	11	19.30%
Hmmm he might very well still be kicking around in six months	21	36.84%
He's not going anywhere for a long time	10	17.54%
Other.......	7	12.28%
Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll

3rd April 2011, 08:38 AM	#1
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,192	Will Gadhaffi Still Be In Power In Six Months? Vote! Despite all the initial western enthusiasm that the colonel would be quickly overthrone, it's looking like he may simply ride out the airstrikes and the rag tag opposition..... So will he still be in power in six months? If yes are we to expect persistent sanctions or will we decide to mend our bridges after having backed the wrong horse? Discuss
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

3rd April 2011, 08:43 AM	#3
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,192	Originally Posted by Thunder how can we vote if there is no poll? Patience is a virtue
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

3rd April 2011, 09:16 AM	#6
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,749	I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Good thing we don't make decisions about the use of military force based on claimed knowledge of future events.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

3rd April 2011, 09:34 AM	#8
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563	If the west doesn't increase it's commitment from current half-measures, then he will ride it out. If it does so, the regime could unravel in days. Unless the high level defections are a rouse of some sort (to convince the west he's really a lot weaker than he is ... he is weird after all), a significant campaign will leave him literarily alone to manage his rebellious state within a few days, and the regime will fall a few days later. McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563

3rd April 2011, 08:42 AM	#2
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	how can we vote if there is no poll?

3rd April 2011, 09:04 AM	#4
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,019	I would have voted "He's not going anywhere for a long time" except he's not exactly a young guy any more.

3rd April 2011, 09:07 AM	#5
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	if my sources are correct, he shall be dead in 6 days, 9 hours, 45 minutes, and 22 seconds. precisely.

3rd April 2011, 09:17 AM	#7
Denver Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 6,599	I voted 'other' because I don't think I have enough information to call it.

3rd April 2011, 11:02 AM	#9
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,749	Originally Posted by McHrozni If the west doesn't increase it's [sic] commitment from current half-measures, then he will ride it out. If it does so, the regime could unravel in days. Unless the high level defections are a rouse [sic] of some sort (to convince the west he's really a lot weaker than he is ... he is weird after all), a significant campaign will leave him literarily alone to manage his rebellious state within a few days, and the regime will fall a few days later. I don't think there's any question as to whether or not the U.S. has sufficient military strength to oust Gaddafi. I assume questions like the one asked in the OP are somehow connected to the question of whether we are justified in getting involved. If the rebels were going to force Gaddafi out the same way the writing was on the wall for Mubarek (not realistic), that's one thing. But if they were just another uprising that Gaddafi would've put down in short order, it's quite another.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

3rd April 2011, 11:15 AM	#10
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,944	Going by the current UN resolution, it seems to me all Gadhafi has to do is not very much. Just maintain a slight advantage and the rebels are subject to the same constraints as the loyalists. Whether somebody close to his home might want to ,er, 'short circuit' Gadhafi's exit is another matter.

3rd April 2011, 01:36 PM	#11
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,749	Originally Posted by GlennB Going by the current UN resolution, But sadly, the coalition (or NATO) isn't abiding by it. It calls for an immediate ceasefire, yet we're providing support to an armed rebellion.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 3rd April 2011 at 01:41 PM.

3rd April 2011, 01:43 PM	#12
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,944	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler But sadly, the coalition (or NATO) isn't abiding by it. It calls for an immediate ceasefire, yet we're providing support to a rebellion. It certainly looks that way. The proof of that pudding would be if the rebels gained ground, recruited deserters and their heavy artillery and tanks, then proved to be just as savage as Gadhafi's mob. Then we'd be obliged to zap them with missiles and the like. We shall see, though I strongly suspect Gadhafi is bright enough to have spotted the hole that the Coalition have dug for themselves.

3rd April 2011, 02:42 PM	#13
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,334	Do you really think he's going to obey the results of a poll on JREF? I mean, if it were this easy why didn't why try it already!?
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,334	__________________ This is a sig file. Does anyone even read this stuff?

3rd April 2011, 03:56 PM	#14
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,576	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Good thing we don't make decisions about the use of military force based on claimed knowledge of future events. Hopefully "we" make decisions about the use of military force based on an accurate assessment of our military capabilities, a reasonable expectation that a particular objective can be achieved, and a serious intention to achieve that objective. So which of the three do you suspect might be baffling our military planners, so that their planning no better than casting lots or reading tarot cards? Is it that they have no accurate assessment of our military capabilities? Is it that they have no idea whether the stated objective is reasonable? Is it that they have no serious intention to achieve that objective?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,576

7th April 2011, 03:33 AM	#15
egslim Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,856	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I don't think there's any question as to whether or not the U.S. has sufficient military strength to oust Gaddafi. No, but the million dollar question is if the US (or NATO) has the political will to apply it. I think at the current rate Gadaffi could last for months, and if NATO were to cease operations three months from now he could probably defeat the rebels in a matter of days or weeks.
egslim Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,856

7th April 2011, 04:52 AM	#16
egslim Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,856	Originally Posted by theprestige Hopefully "we" make decisions about the use of military force based on an accurate assessment of our military capabilities, a reasonable expectation that a particular objective can be achieved, and a serious intention to achieve that objective. So which of the three do you suspect might be baffling our military planners, so that their planning no better than casting lots or reading tarot cards? Is it that they have no accurate assessment of our military capabilities? Is it that they have no idea whether the stated objective is reasonable? Is it that they have no serious intention to achieve that objective? Good question, and there's probably no simple answer. I think military planners focus too much on training and technological military capability, not enough on the human factors. The key to evaluate chances for success in Libya is to accurately determine the web of tribal tensions and alliances in the country, together with the local's motivations. Instead our planners are trained to go after the enemy's C&C and hardware, which is a good strategy in a pitched battle against a conventional army, but of limited use in tribal warfare. On a lower level, our military personel seems to go into these kinds of conflicts with vague beliefs like they're there to help people, save lives, etc. That's a recipe for failure, because such idealistic objectives are unsuitable for military power. Bombs and bullets don't save lives, they kill people. Accept that, and set expectations accordingly. The political level is more complicated. A politician's motivation to support an operation may not always coïncide with the operation's objective. He can use it to score short-term domestic points, without regards for the long-term effect. On the international stage politicians also love to make themselves important. Can anyone see US politicians happy to play second fiddle internationally if France had gone into Libya at the head of an alliance, without US military support? Military expenditure plays a role too. If you spend a lot of money on the military, you'll want to get your money's worth sometimes. Enter Albright's famous quote.
egslim Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,856

10th April 2011, 09:42 AM	#17
Captain.Sassy Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,180	Originally Posted by theprestige Hopefully "we" make decisions about the use of military force based on an accurate assessment of our military capabilities, a reasonable expectation that a particular objective can be achieved, and a serious intention to achieve that objective. So which of the three do you suspect might be baffling our military planners, so that their planning no better than casting lots or reading tarot cards? Is it that they have no accurate assessment of our military capabilities? Is it that they have no idea whether the stated objective is reasonable? Is it that they have no serious intention to achieve that objective? I think they may have been off on (1). The forces that were brought to bear on Khaddafy were Western air power and the Libyan rebel ground forces. It seems like the ground forces may not have measured up to their hypothesized effectiveness. Now regime change using fairly limited means has been promised, a promised outcome that may be at the same time difficult but politically imperative for some Western leaders to deliver. It's a stupid place to be in politically cause now one possible resolution of the conflict that might more readily have been delivered relying on (it turns out) airpower alone, namely a ceasefire with Khadhafy and de-facto sovereignty for the East of Libya (like Kosovo), will be portrayed internationally and domestically as a Khadaffi having beaten the West and the Democrats, respectively. Committing more to a ground war similarly has risks for Western leaders both domestically and internationally. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...orces-benghazi Rebel defences around Ajdabiya appeared to be failing as Gaddafi's soldiers broke in to the heart of the strategic town, 90 miles from Benghazi, and engaged in running street battles after again outmanoeuvring the revolutionaries. http://www.economist.com/node/18488264 If partition of some kind were to happen, it looks like Ajdabiya would be a pretty important city that either side would want to control, since it looks like that would mean controlling the main roads to the oil fields in the south. Assuming that a partition reflected 'facts on the ground' (think Bosnia). Also from the Guardian article: Nato forced a rebel MIG jet to land because of the UN-imposed no-fly zone
	__________________ Evolution a poem As luck would have it, people. Last edited by Captain.Sassy; 10th April 2011 at 09:51 AM.

10th April 2011, 02:44 PM	#18
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Do most Libyans support him? This is something that the Western media avoids. So I suspect they do. If most Libyans like Ghadhaffi, how can he be taken out of power?

10th April 2011, 05:18 PM	#19
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson Do most Libyans support him? This is something that the Western media avoids. So I suspect they do. If most Libyans like Ghadhaffi, how can he be taken out of power? Yeah, but the guys in the east really, really, really hate him. So it kind of averages out well enough, doesn't it?

17th July 2011, 07:01 AM	#20
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,192	Thought I'd resurrect the thread as the 2-3 month time frame option has expired on the poll.... The Colonel seems still very much in power - and looking like he's not going anywhere. Indeed, if i was betting on an outcome, it'd be some sort of negotiated settlement in the autumn allowing NATO to get the hell out of operations - maybe a semi-autonomous region with UN peacekeepers in the rebel area....?
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

17th July 2011, 10:21 AM	#21
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555	The Duck of Death is no longer the recognized ruler of Libya, though he remains holed up in Tripoli. 30 countries have now recognized the largest rebel organization as the legitimate government. That means the former rebels now have access to Libya's frozen assets and can legally sell Libyan oil.
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555	Last edited by Toontown; 17th July 2011 at 10:22 AM.

17th July 2011, 11:58 AM	#22
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563	Originally Posted by Toontown The Duck of Death is no longer the recognized ruler of Libya, though he remains holed up in Tripoli. 30 countries have now recognized the largest rebel organization as the legitimate government. That means the former rebels now have access to Libya's frozen assets and can legally sell Libyan oil. In theory, at least. Depending on how the 4th battle of Brega pans out. McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563

17th July 2011, 04:33 PM	#23
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555	Originally Posted by McHrozni In theory, at least. Depending on how the 4th battle of Brega pans out. McHrozni I doubt that the outcome of any battle can save The Quacker at this point. He is too small, and the international forces arrayed against him are too large.
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555

18th July 2011, 01:27 AM	#24
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563	Originally Posted by Toontown I doubt that the outcome of any battle can save The Quacker at this point. He is too small, and the international forces arrayed against him are too large. True, but the international forces are also reluctant to use a significant portion of their power and are getting weary. If NATO quits, he may yet survive the war, since rebels would be demoralized and his troops would recieve a significant morale boost. But this probably won't happen, which is good. McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563

18th July 2011, 02:39 PM	#25
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Now that the party of al Qaeda and lynch mobs is recognized even by the US, my partition proposal won't likely fly, but here it is: http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2...-solution.html The people of Libya that still support Gaddafi (somewhere near a million were in the streets of Tripoli recently) will just have to get used to the new management, and they better not start "protesting" against them. That was a one-time deal. folks. NATO will not help out the next one...

21st August 2011, 02:07 AM	#26
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,192	Still there.....
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

21st August 2011, 05:10 PM	#27
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,192	Going?
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

21st August 2011, 07:04 PM	#28
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,780	I voted that he will be gone in days, but I am posting this on August 21.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

21st August 2011, 08:05 PM	#29
Dayan81 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 450	I suspect he will either be arrested or dead within 24 hours.
Dayan81 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 450

21st August 2011, 08:49 PM	#30
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,879	Rebel propaganda and dog lies of Satan. Gaddafi, God be praised, shall always control Libya.

21st August 2011, 09:54 PM	#31
HoverBoarder Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2011 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,112	Congratulations Libyans your tyrant and the mad dog of Africa is finally done killing your people.

21st August 2011, 11:09 PM	#32
trustbutverify Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,082	Originally Posted by HoverBoarder Congratulations Libyans your tyrant and the mad dog of Africa is finally done killing your people. and my condolences to the Cynthia Mckinney/Hugo Chavez douchebag foundation.

22nd August 2011, 02:26 PM	#33
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	I used to wonder if people at lynching parties ever stopped and said "Oh my God, look at us! We're a buch of animals. Are we even sure this guy really raped a white girl?" I figured the answer was no. Comments here, elsewhere, from the masses and their leaders, on this undemocratic brute force "popular revolution" by NATO bombs and rebel monster invasions, I can see that confirmed. Anyway, bring in the free market reforms, the full access to onshore oil, Vivendi management of the great manmade river, a more profitable and controllable central bank, and the lucrative western reconstruction contracts. All under the flag of Libya's co-opted and corrupt monarchy. It's a perfect takeover, except for taking months, billions of dollars, and thousands of dead more than it was supposed to. Cut the lifetime health care and universal education for Libya's people, aid to the rest of Africa, and the colorful and stubborn leader who used to be an easy scapegoat to blame for anything we didn't want to know the truth about. I suppose we'll need a replacement for that last part. That is, once Tripoli is actually subdued with its million Gaddafi supporters (the vast majority), and the majority elsewhere in the country fails to re-impose its will, somehow, over NATO's fond dreams and foot soldiers. Voting at this point is the enemy, unless the slate of options can be carefully pared down by someone sympathetic...

22nd August 2011, 02:29 PM	#34
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by trustbutverify and my condolences to the Cynthia Mckinney/Hugo Chavez douchebag foundation. Make that the Cynthia McKinney/Hugo Chavez/Caustic Logic/solid majority of the Libyan people/etc. douchebag foundation. Managed to verify any of the rebel claims you trusted as to why this war was necessary? (Massacring protesters, promising to kill everyone in Benghazi, using African mercenaries, mass rape, bombing Tripoli, practicing "genocide," etc...)